A New World Religion Backed by the United Nations

This article was subsequently published at Online Opinion 
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12002


The world is going barking mad with religiosity! While many of us feel that we have known this for a long time, it has always been difficult to find substantial evidence that wasn't countered by arguments of religious vilification.

However, I’m not talking about Islamic suicide bombers, Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland, the abhorrent members of Westboro Baptist Church, ‘pro-life’ radicals bombing abortion clinics, or any of the other examples of minority groups being less than good examples of the faiths they follow.

Instead, I would like to open your eyes to a new pervasive religion that is steadily growing and insidiously lurking in your community. If successful it will have a terrifying impact on the existence of life as we know it.

Regardless of your political views, spiritual beliefs, faith or lack thereof, please bear with me for a moment while I tell you a short story. Even if it sounds a bit familiar, please persevere.

This story is set on a unique world; a smallish blue-green environment with abundant vegetation and teeming with wondrous life forms on land, air and water. In this world, there is a sentient humanoid species who believe that their world has an undefinable, immeasurable and yet omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent energy force that interacts with all life forms.

This force gives them life, nourishes, teaches and provides them with all that is needed to live well and, as if they were its own children, they call this force "Mother".

They recognise that Mother is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom they share a common destiny and to whom they must relate in ways that benefit Mother.

However, their world is confronted by an evil that is attempting to dominate and exploit Mother and other beings. This evil is causing severe destruction, degradation and disruption of the life-sustaining communities, processes and balances of Mother which now threatens the wellbeing and existence of many beings.

They are conscious that this destruction is also harmful to their own inner wellbeing and is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother is sacred. These clans are acutely conscious of the critical importance and urgency of taking decisive, collective action to prevent the evil enemy causing impacts on Mother that threaten the wellbeing and survival of all species.

Sound familiar? No, it isn't the plot from James Cameron's blockbuster, Avatar - but the resemblance is not a mere coincidence. While Avatar has been justifiably compared to the historical and current issues of our own world, it now seems that the lines between fantasy and reality have blurred even further.

Apart from a few tweaks for syntax, everything above in italics is a direct quote from the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, which was passed in Bolivia on 22 April 2010 at the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth and has since made its way to the plenary floor (here and here) of the United Nations.

'Mother Earth' has been transformed from a metaphoric and mythical euphemism into pseudo-scientific woo! You have not entered the Twilight Zone; you are not watching a CGI enhanced movie; this is reality and the world is about to enshrine the beliefs of a new-age religion (or a revival of ancient mysticism) into legal rights on par with those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Now, before you retort with “it's all about protecting the environment” or label me a shill for capitalism and corporate world domination, let me correct you. For the record, I am a staunch environmentalist. I believe in, and promote the protection of landscapes, habitats and species. I readily acknowledge that human activity is essentially bad for this world and that we need to curb our greed and consumerism. You will hear no argument from me on those facts.

But, that is NOT the point of this rant. What I object to is the use of pantheistic and Gaia inspired language that, if adopted on an international level in a legal treaty, will have the effect of making "Mother Earth" the new deity of a green-religion forced onto all of Earth's citizens.

No, I am not being overly dramatic. Read the details for yourself so that you can fully comprehend the implications. It is littered with religious undertones and metaphors that have enormous legal repercussions on every human being:

"we must establish systems for governing human behavior that recognize the inalienable rights of Mother Earth and of all beings that are part of her" and

"the fundamental freedoms and rights of Mother Earth and of all beings should be protected by the rule of law, and that the corresponding duties of human beings to respect and defend these rights and freedoms should be enforced by law"

Such statements, when taken to their natural conclusion, imply that you and I cannot even dig a hole in the ground or kill a cockroach for fear of prosecution under some future law. Even cleaning your house might become illegal because of the bacterial colonies that you would destroy in the process!

This is not merely a feel-good unifying statement of our inarguable environmental responsibility as custodians of the Earth. It is a deliberately transformational credo that redefines our very existence and our relationship with all life on this planet.

All of this poppycock has stemmed from the rising groundswell of support for an environmental movement that has ceased to function as a sensible social and political force. It is now, undeniably, a zealous quasi-religious cult that wishes to impose a narrow-minded and anti-scientific view that all life is part of one universal ‘energy force’, which we are now obliged to pay homage to, for all that 'she' has done for us.

This is nothing short of irrational pandering to the fantasies of earth-worshipping, crystal-healing, indigo children. Human beings are now eagerly lining up to be the sacrificial lambs at the altar of Gaia.

This type of international politicking and pseudo law-making will do very little to improve our relationship with the environment or save many species from extinction, but it will make some people feel good as they run naked through the forest with blue birds on their shoulders and rabbits bounding at their feet singing some Disney inspired anthem. Except that the forest is likely to become a restricted area - after all, animals and plants will have a right to exist without any human interference.

This is not an isolated event to be ignored or passed off as the random act of a fringe third world nation. This has been decades in the planning and follows the inclusion of Rights for Nature into the Ecuadorian Constitution in 2008 and the United Nations' proclamation of April 22 as International Mother Earth Day, distinct from Earth Day on March 22 each year.

The UN's own website for Mother Earth Day states:

In 2009, at its Eighth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues requested special rapporteurs to prepare a Study on the need to recognize and respect the rights of Mother Earth. At its Ninth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will discuss the findings of the study, as well as works toward establishing a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.

Please note that the United Nations did not act out of mere tokenism. This is a predetermined action to meet a predefined goal and it is sanctioned and supported by the member nations of the UN. Conspiracy theories aside, there is a real agenda in play and it is supported by:

Agenda 21: an initiative of the United Nations that seeks to create a world bound by the principles of sustainable development; and

Codex Alimentarius the UN global strategy to manipulate and control agriculture, food and supplements devised in 1963 and guided by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) with the support of 184 member nations.

All of this is pointing to a future where your current life and lifestyle is marked for demolition as unreasonable restrictions are inevitably placed on the energy you consume, the food you eat, the materials you buy and even the places you are allowed to visit.

The reality for the 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth is that something needs to change; to continue on a destructive path is certainly unsustainable. On that we can agree.

But the answer is not to anthropomorphise the environment, to give rise to a crass spirituality or empower the most weirdly radical movement of the modern era. Nor is it to throw the human race into an era of reliance upon heavily regulated food production by profit-driven corporations reminiscent of the science fiction classic, Soylent Green.

The answer lies in education and self-regulation of our own consumerism. We may not be doing enough in a timely manner, but we are making changes, slowly and surely.

Faith in our ability to succeed on that pathway is far more palatable than faith in Gaia and the religiosity that surely follows.

  

An Obituary

Received the following in an email. The source is attributed as being an obituary published in the London Times, although the BBC attributes it to Lori Borgman. There are also a few different versions across the Internet including this more parochial one.


Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, 'Common Sense', who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouth wash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement .

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights; I Want It Now; Someone Else Is To Blame; I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone.

If you still remember him, pass this on.

If not, join the majority and do nothing.

A Micro Win for Civil Liberties

Anyone following my Twitter profile would know I was dealing with an issue at the Australian Tax Office in Northbridge. Here's how it was relayed on Twitter:

polemicol OH: ATO staff warning tourists "you can't take a photograph - its a government building" #ohperth #lie 10:20 AM Apr 8th

In reply to a Direct Message (DM) querying if it was a security guard:

polemicol no - a mere staff member as she was leaving the building. watch out for the memo that will be sent to all staff, after I get finished ;-) 10:39 AM Apr 8th

I had walked into the ATO and complained to the security guard about the incident, but he was laissez faire about the whole thing, wouldn't give me the name of anyone to speak with, but told me to call in tomorrow (Wednesday).

polemicol lots to do - banking, bills, holiday planning, ruffling the feathers of security and building management at the ATO - all in a day's work! 10:52 AM Apr 8th
polemicol @bel no - just a citizen protecting our civil liberties, ensuring that ATO staff know its perfectly legal to photograph government buildings 10:57 AM Apr 8th in reply to Bel
polemicol @bel no chance that photos are illegal - this is Australia, not the USA (yet!) ;-) about 19 hours ago in reply to Bel

I did call back Wednesday afternoon, but unfortunately missed the relevant person.Finally, I met with Property Operations Manager this morning and discussed the issues of law versus ATO policy, as well as civil liberties versus employee security.

polemicol I had a micro win for civil liberties today - ATO will advise staff that it's legal to photograph from outside the building ;-) about 1 hour ago
polemicol @perthtones but they still reserve the right to challenge anyone taking photographs and subsequently report them to authorities. *sigh* 33 minutes ago in reply to perthtones

Cyber safety research may miss the mark

The good people over at Australian eDemocracy alerted me to the recent report that the Federal Government will spend some of the $125.8 million cyber safety plan funding to engage an Edith Cowan University research team to "review current research on matters such as the nature and prevalence of cyber-safety issues, such as cyber-bullying, online predators and the disclosure of personal information."

They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."

All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.

On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:

“...much good work has been done by researchers to assess the prevalence of the bullying problem but virtually no research has been conducted to investigate empirically what can be done to address this problem.”

It seems she has found a way to get this important research funded by convincing the government that it is a cyber safety issue.

I disagree!

Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.

I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.

Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".

At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:

“Many young people say that they wouldn’t report cyber bullying because most adults don’t know that they have a cyber life ... But parents have a moral, as well as a legal, responsibility to ensure that their children engage in safe and responsible behaviour – including online behaviour.”

Precisley the point that Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and his team just don't seem to get, which is why they are insisting on imposing Internet Censorship via a secret filter on all ISP activity to ban black-listed sites.

Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?

We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.

Absolving responsibility

The following is a copy of a discussion that I was involved with on Facebook. It started with my comment in response to someone joining a cause titled Keep Sex Offenders Off the Internet

I feel that type of group does not do any good. It unfairly utilises the term "sex offenders" when they are really targeting paedophiles (if you don't know the difference, get educated!) and takes its members down the road of "society is to blame, I am not responsible for my children, I am helpless, the Government must do something".


Collin Mullane at 23:24 on 15 February

(this is not directed at you, but at the group)
... and keep them out of parks too, and they shouldn't be using telephones either, or driving cars, or allowed in shopping centres or on sporting fields.
Hell, let's just ban them from getting on with their lives after they've paid the penalty for their actions. (insert sarcasm)

Sara --------- at 10:50 on 16 February

The physcology required to commit sexual offences against children, is not something which can be asumed rectified after the serving of sentence, the autonomy offered by the internet and the potential for inappropriate and deliberate targeting of children for perverse pleasure is something the community should do more to prevent. Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child.
Any access to internet by convicted child offenders ought to be limited by security software to general sites and their pornographic activities limited to sites which are monitored by appropriate authorities for any material which might be considered to be of concern.

Sara --------- at 11:00 on 16 February

In regards to Prison visit rooms, the dept of corrections and the countrys legislative policy regarding the same are considered to be in keeping with the priority of child protection. My understanding is that those prisoners who are considered of concern in terms of children are not able to have visitors attend the prison on those visits which are accepting of kids. There are specific child accepting visits and non child accepting visits available at all dept of Corrections facilities. In addition to this specific method of Child protection, I and I know I speak for many other of the beautiful girls who visit partners reguarly, have the sort of personal protection available to me in this forum that would intimidate any potential problem to my child. For anyone who isnt sure what I just said, my partner is sufficently fit, healthy, and capable to be a deterant to any person that might be a problem to me or any member of his kin.

Collin Mullane at 11:24 on 16 February

Sarah - if you wish to absolve yourself of responsibility and instead place it firmly on the shoulders of society, you fail as a parent and as a citizen (in my arrogant opinion).
Your argument is no different to another parent allowing their child to fend for themselves alone at home while they go out to work and then blaming society when the house burns down.
It _IS__YOUR__RESPONSIBILITY to know what your children are watching on tv, what books they are reading, the friends they hang with, AND what they do on the Internet.
As with the television and DVDs, the Internet is NOT designed to act as your free babysitter.

Collin Mullane at 11:32 on 16 February

As for the offenders:
According to your argument we should also restrict all murderers from watching murder movies or going to forensic or news websites in case they get ideas! Perhaps recidivist speeders or car thieves should be banned from going to the speedway or playing Grand Theft Auto? I could make an endless list of similar ridiculous suggestions.
No-one can truly know if someone has been rehabilitated in prison, in a psychiatric hospital or as a result of lengthy therapy sessions - the same applies to addicts (drug, gambling, other) as it does to sex offenders or any other criminal. We must allow justice to prevail and for offenders to either redeem themselves (as most do) or re-offend, in which case we try again.
Censorship and nanny-state regulation will not stop crime. Education, understanding and helping to provide equity and equality across society WILL.

Sara --------- at 08:29 on 17 February

Colin - Good morning.

In regards to Murderers and the watching of violent crime, the length of sentence in these cases is far higher than it is for sexual and predatory but passive (phsycological) crime. Often the offenders of violent crime, do not infact see the light of day again. And here I speak of the crime of Murder (denoting premedatation) not felony murder, unlawful killing, manslaughter, the lesser crimes where a definate intention to kill can not be substanciated.

Simplifying the argument like you have is the equivelant of sensationalism, not uncommon in a media savvy, over educated middle class ruled society. Bearing in mind that you yourself have brought the subject up within a public forum you need to be prepared for the inevitability that many people with a wider reaching knowledged of the subject matter may just have something to say. The problem here is that it may be necessary for you to expand your understanding versus make unchallenged propegatory statement.

Sara --------- at 08:38 on 17 February

In your second paragraph you made the statement that Justice must prevail. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point. Justice is not the process by which the offending serve terms of punishment toward reinstated freedom. Justice is the term applied to a procedure which best serves the society/community interests after the commiting of an offence against the interest of that same group.

Your arguments are somewhat transparent and if I was going to cast a critical literary eye apon them I would say, unplanned and largely unresearched. You seem to shift intermitantly between arguments as the subject matter in places is directly contridictory. This can happen when a definate position is not held and a secondary motive for your statement or work is its primary reasoning.

Clearly you have a definate interest in the advocacy of child sex offenders that is an interesting position.

Sara --------- at 08:48 on 17 February

As stated in the first response to your initial posting, it is my personal beleif, that the offender of child sex offenses does commit an act against a physically and mentally inferior person and indeed a minor which as group the community has declared unable to adequately protect itself. They are targeted because they are physically too insignificant to protect themselves. These acts are usually by virtue calculated, prolonged and therefore quite definately premediated and unprovoked.

I feel the entrapment of children for perverse pleasure is a crime far exceeding any normal physcological pattern. Whilst I and im sure you may have thrown a slap or abusive word in a heated moment, an undeniable similar thread to violent crime. Personally I myself do not entertain any ideology which incorporates the victimisation of children.

Sara --------- at 08:52 on 17 February

Colin - have a nice day.

All the best for your Child Sex Offender Advocacy, im sure that particular minority feels the less isolated for your friendship and support.

Meanwhile - my position - stay away from my child coz like I said, violent crime is something I think all persons with enough motivation are capable.

Cheers

Collin Mullane at 09:48 on 17 February

LOL ... you missed my point entirely (or deliberately evaded it) and your condescending tone, decision to argue odd points, and attempt to paint me as a supporter of child abuse simply detracts from the debate and is a poor attempt to wriggle out of the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to care for your children.

Are you Australian? Felony Murder is a term commonly used in the USA, but no longer in most of Australia. Perhaps you watch too much imported TV ;-)

I choose to simplify arguments because most of the populace can't deal with complex issues, particularly where fundamentalism and conservatism reign. Thank you for demonstrating that point.

I do not need to give my credentials on debating this matter, suffice to say that I advocate for (holistic) justice, not simply retribution as you would seek out. You appear to have a personal hatred for sex offenders, likely due to being a victim or being close to one. I'm sorry to see that has clouded your judgement.

.... (cont)

Collin Mullane at 10:03 on 17 February

I think your final comments are offensive and technically libellous. Again another attempt to discredit me and shift focus away from the debating the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

If you wish to attack my points, do so carefully and specifically, rather than to alluding to some contradictions that don't actually exist, but which the casual reader may accept as truth because they would rather follow a mantra of "you're with me, or against me". than risk being labelled as you have done to me. Classic bully tactics.

However, if you wish to debate my original points I'll be glad to respond.

The debate is about censorship of the internet for specific people. The Internet is a medium very much like television and press, with the exception that it relies on openness and accessibility. With that comes the need for respect and responsibility. You cannot abrogate your duties as a parent to someone else. The Internet is not a babysitter.

Collin Mullane at 11:34 on 17 February

To bring the debate to a fine point, my argument stems from this comment of yours:

"Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child."

The point I am striving to drive home is that you DO and SHOULD have to worry. Leaving your child unattended on the Internet amounts to neglect, and is not dissimilar to allowing them to watch porn or R rated movies, let alone leaving them alone in a shopping centre to talk to whomever approaches.

If you can show me the difference, you may just win a part of the argument.

Sara --------- at 11:43 on 17 February
How my children became the real issue of a debate/discussion on "Sex offender access to the internet" is something only you could explain I am sure. It would appear to be a change of topic and it would not be difficult to ascertain the reasoning behind such an attempt.

In regards to the almost stage performance accusation of their being a American television watching illiterate, sorry again - wrong.

Actually I am a student of law and assure you felony murder is still a sentencing title in this country. It is employed in all states of Australia as a product of case law/precedent argument. It is used to argue where they may not have been a direct premeditated intent to kill, but where it was a known likelihood of a personal decission to commit offence.

You refer to the wider populace as not being capable to deal with complex issues. If you deny them the opportunity by simplifying complex issues, then certainly they can not.

Sara --------- at 11:51 on 17 February
If you however inform any reader throughout your presentation of the facts then a contentious issue is most certainly within their understanding and capability to reason.

My response was not meant to aggrevate you Colin but rather to suggest that in a world which increasingly utilizes the internet for everyday activities, including school education, we as a community have reached a stage where the protection of those unable to necessarily protect themselves should be given consideration, specifically in regards to those persons previously convicted of sexual offense.

Studies of Criminal Behaviour and in particular Child sex offender, have a startling rate of re-offense. The fact that we the empowered society and its institutions are aware by analysis that the likelihood of re offence is considerable (and considerably higher than the other offences you have chosen to highlight) do you not think some supervision of their internet activity is appropriate?

Collin Mullane at 11:54 on 17 February
My god, woman! YOU brought your children into the debate, not me.
For friggin sake - go back and read your response to my original posting.

In the meantime I will produce a clear analysis of the debate pathway and repost so that you don't get lost in the future. Don't have time now, but will try to do so this afternoon.

Sara --------- at 12:01 on 17 February
I agree with you Colin that consideration should be given to the fact that the serving of sentence should afford the opportunity to rehabilitate, it is one of the foundations of Common Law. Unfortunately not all crimes can be considered like and when we come to the advances of society like the internet the law needs to be amended to do that which it is employed to, protect. If the liberties of a previously convicted persons of crimes considered predatory need to be restricted to best serve the wider interests of the community, then whilst I can sympathise with a minority I can not put their interests before the "group - humankind"

So I guess we agree to disagree, I feel that restriction in the case of Sexual offense is appropriate and that those persons to which it would apply should not be given access to public speaking forums where they might be able to have inappropriate relations with a child in any school class room accross the country. Where the internet is now a part.

Sara --------- at 12:06 on 17 February
Colin please accept my apologies for anything I may have included which you found personally offensive. I realize your arguments are in reality aligned with some of my own. The serving of sentence should afford those who are the minority an opportunity to re enter society.
But where this poses a threat which is more likely than it is just possible, then, I think further consideration/restriction/policy is needed.

Im sorry you thought my comments were condescending - your a bit pompus yourself.......:-)

Sara --------- at 12:14 on 17 February
Colin, Colin, Colin, I bought children into the topic as a direct user of the Internet and therefore a potential target of those persons being discussed. You utilized to begin a debate about parents using the internet as a babysitter. (Which I consider rude in the extreme.) You are suggesting by virtue of your argument that childrens use of the internet (which is educational no matter what it is being used for) should be restricted and limited to accomodate sex offenders. Mate that is what you said. And you think my use of the word advocate is inaccurate.

As I stated in the previous, it was not my intention to aggrevate you into an argument. As discussion could not be said to be possible as you keep refencing issues outside the topic, I think the exchange has run its course. I wont be make further comment and feel that all stated prior speaks for itself.

Good day to you sir!

Collin Mullane at 17:01 on 17 February
Indeed

Censorship or Backdown?

[update 2: The Age have reinstated the article ... no explanations]

My previous post about the "Forest Fire Jihad" warning needs an update. The Age has removed the article from its site. WHY? Because of all the publicity it has received in the last 24 hours, or because it was asked by the Government, and an embarrassed Attorney-General, Robert McClelland?

[update 1: It is possible that The Age just decided to cash in by charging $2.20 access for everyone who wanted to read it, however no other Australian news sources are reporting what the rest of the world have regurgitated in the last 24 hours. Why so silent?

A Daily Mail report (UK) states: Police say they have seen no indication that the Victorian blazes were a 'forest jihad', launched by a group of Islamic extremists using fire as a form of terror against Western communities - despite South Australian Premier Mike Rann labelling the perpetrators as 'terrorists'.]

Fortunately there are other sources and I link them below as well as copy the article for posterity.

Islam group urges forest fire jihad
by Josh Gordon for The Age
September 7, 2008

AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.

US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".

The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.

The posting — which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months — says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time".

"Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says. "You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."

With the nation heading into another hot, dry summer, Australian intelligence agencies are treating the possibility that bushfires could be used as a weapon of terrorism as a serious concern.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.

"Any information that suggests a threat to Australia's interests is investigated by relevant agencies as appropriate," Mr McClelland said.

Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong's Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, said that bushfires (unlike suicide bombing) were generally not considered a glorious type of attack by jihadis, in keeping with a recent decline in the sophistication of terrorist operations.

"With attacks like bushfires, yes, it would be easy. It would be very damaging and we do see a decreasing sophistication as a part of terrorist attacks," Dr Dolnik said.

"In recent years, there have been quite a few attacks averted and it has become more and more difficult for groups to do something effective."

Dr Dolnik said he had observed an increase in traffic on jihadi websites calling for a simplification of terrorist attacks because the more complex operations had been failing. But starting bushfires was still often regarded as less effective than other operations because governments could easily deny terrorism as the cause.

The internet posting by the little-known group claimed the idea of forest fires had been attributed to imprisoned Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Suri. It said Al-Suri had urged terrorists to use sulphuric acid and petrol to start forest fires.

Check out all the links through Google here.

Other Sources:
Jihad Watch
Western Institute for Study of the Environment News
Clipmarks
Canada Free Press
Hillary's Village

Firebugs are Terrorists

Thanks to @Jinjirrie for the heads up (a Retweet from @mparent77772) on this tabloid-inspired report in The Age last September:

Islam group urges forest fire jihad
[update - The Age has archived this article see follow up post ]

I'm not so much interested in whether this was a plausible threat or not - it really doesn't matter. What I did find interesting was this:

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.

Go on Mr McClelland ... someone has done it - now, what did you say you were going to do? And will it still apply if they are Caucasian and Christian?

Is this my last post before the police take me away?

PUBLIC WARNING!!!
Reading this post may put you at risk of breaking the law in Australia or other nanny-state nations. Following some the the links in the post will certainly do so!

I am posting this report and the links because I think the law has gone too far and I am putting out the challenge for charges to be laid against me.

2008 is likely to be remembered for many things, but censorship is the one area that has taken the spotlight, as the Australian Government, policing agencies, the courts of law and all forms of media have attempted to create an increasingly black and white view in a very grey world.

There is a fine line between right and wrong. Often that line gets crossed through humour, silliness, accident or just plain ignorance. But does that mean that the full weight of the law should come down upon you?

We have seen the problem caused by Bill Henson's artistic perspectives (viewed via Google) and the topic has arisen through the public debate surrounding Stephen Conroy's proposal for an Internet filter, which most industry experts consider to be infeasible and a waste of effort - see www.nocleanfeeed.com.

More recently we see that the Courts are now jumping in with questionable rulings on what constitutes child abuse, and specifically that which is deemed to be child pornography.

Mark Pesce writes about two such cases on the ABC blog "Unleashed" and Greg Barnes also has a say over on OnlineOpinion.

The first is regarding the Simpsons cartoon characters represented in sexual acts. The second concerns a judgement against a man who redistributed a video online of a child being swung around in the air - deemed to be child abuse.

By the way, if you want to risk police attention, you will find many of these cartoon "porn" pics by doing a simple search on Google (e.g. Bart sex or Simpsons Sex). The suspect video is apprently freely available on the internet and in my research I've determined that it is probably this one on Youtube.

Judge for yourselves ... am I now a criminal for having viewed this material and linking to them on my blog? Are you?

Coming Soon - broadcasting live to your desktop

Get Up! Campaign to Save the Net

Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content.

This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun. The community must now move to stop this plan. Click here to save the net:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet








The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see the scheme is open to abuse.

Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The protection of our children is vitally important - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms.

This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship does neither. Take action to save the net today.

Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The GetUp team

PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in Australia. Click here to save the net.

Tools to beat Internet Censorship

Here are a few resources to assist anyone wishing to challenge, undermine and even usurp the Australian Government's intention to censor the Internet through the application of a national filter.

Tell them to take a flying leap and send Stephen Conroy a one-fingered message of defiance:

An overview is provided here:
http://www.masternewmedia.org/privacy_security/bypass-internet-censorship/bypass-internet-filters-anonymous-browsing-guide-20071118.htm
and here:
http://citizenlab.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1319
plus this one:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071015-citizen-lab-releases-guide-to-circumventing-internet-censors.html

Some web-based tools are offered here:
http://proxify.com/alt.shtml
http://www.peacefire.org/circumventor/
http://www.stupidcensorship.com

Other software is provided here:
http://psiphon.ca/
http://www.internetfreedom.org/
http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/
http://rajeshrana.net/2008/02/12/7-best-tools-to-circumvent-internet-censorship-%E2%80%93-an-alternatives-to-ultra-surf/

Good Luck! ;-)

An eye for an eye

“An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.”
Mahatma Ghandi

The three convicted Bali Bombers have been murdered by a vicious, third world legal system at the behest of ignorant and depraved public opinion.

This is a sad and disappointing day for anyone who holds justice high above and disparate from vengeance; for those who foresee the deep and dark ramifications of gifting martyrdom.

And all the while war criminals like Tony Blair and George W. Bush, who are ultimately responsible for the documented deaths of more than 100,000 (potentially closer to 500,000), continue to walk the Earth as free men.

Death Penalty Caveat

An article on the death penalty and interesting commentary from readers led me to state:

The death penalty is final - what happens when we get the verdict wrong? How many innocent lives can we justify as the means to the end?

The only way I would accept the existence of capital punishment is if juries, prosecutors and judges were also given the death penalty if it was found that they'd convicted (and thus murdered) the wrong person.

With that caveat I doubt anyone would be game to take the chance.

What Lies Beyond the Activism?

Featured in The West Australian, Saturday 4 October 2008 pg14. This is the unedited version - italicised areas differ from the printed version.

Taking the opposing view of a high profile group, such as Pride WA, is always fraught with danger. And if, as the devil's advocate, you happen to be an out (and proud) activist for human rights, questioning the validity of Mardi Gras' poorer and impotent WA cousin is likely to inspire a gay fatwa.

Religion and ice-breaker aside, this debate is about whether the Pride Parade still offers any significant purpose in a modern society that has largely redeemed itself of a torrid, but relatively short-lived, history of fear and hatred towards non-heterosexual citizens.

During the last few decades of activism, lobbying, community consultation and legislative debate, Pride was one of a handful of necessary tools used to highlight the cause of homosexuals (bisexuals and trans-folk were forgotten for many years) and sway public opinion. To this end the successive committees achieved their purpose and the battle was won.

Today, just a few years after the first parade in 1990, we have sexual and gender equality exceeding other states and beyond what most countries could hope to achieve in a similar time frame.

Even the current Premier, who vehemently opposed the 2002 legislation that transformed our state, is unwilling to water down this advancement. What is done is done; we now move forward as a progressive and respectful society.

This year Pride has donned the tag-line of "re-invention". And it is timely that it do so, just as a teenager must eventually lose the unruliness and loutish nature of its youthful exuberance in favour of a more cultured, mature and civil interaction with a diverse society.

The question for Pride, once famed for attracting a six figure audience to witness political parody, is what lies beyond the activism?

Sydney's internationally famous Mardi Gras has grown up from its protest roots to become a unique tourist drawcard that injects millions of dollars into the economy. Perth, due to its isolation and population, is incapable of achieving the same.

The Parade is waning, the after-party has retired to a nightclub, and Northbridge Fairday attendance has dropped significantly. Homophobic crimes are no more concerning than racial or religious inspired ones and the majority of our GLBT youth enjoy the company of their straight friends across venues without question.

Pride is in the sunset of its years. It deserves our respect and thanks, not our lifeline.

The Other War

Whatever happened to the other war ... you know, the one started by Ronald Reagan, and continued by successive US governments .. the other war against a faceless enemy that was designed to bring fear into the hearts and minds of every Joe and Jane Citizen ... the War on Drugs! ???

Now we know that the USA has used the "War on Drugs" to great effect in achieving its goals in Central and South America. So what would happen if the USA ran up against a rebellious state telling the local sherriff to nick off?

Well, one side would naturally have to make claims of a worsening trafficking problem to highlight the ineffectiveness of the insubordinate regime:
Cocaine Finds a New Latin American Home.

Take particular note of the "tracked" routes (see image below) used by traffickers ... one could easily be led to think that the Dominican Republic is one VERY tripped out place with all the drugs going there, but not seeming to leave! Not to mention that the drugs don't even seem to originate in Columbia anymore either.



Apparently the White House knows where the drugs come from (Venezuela) and knows where they arrive (Dominican Republic) but somehow loses track of them after that!

However, it is also quite evident by these "tracks" that the drugs are not going through any of the usual Central American countries anymore, which must, of course, be due to the incredible success of the long-standing partnership with the US Drug Enforcement Agency ;-)

Of course there's always the other, less popular or politically convenient, side of the story, which boldly claims that Venezuela Boosts Drug Seizures, Arrests Triple.

Now, they can't be both right, can they?

Given the USA's track record on propaganda, I'd bet my Aussie dollar along with a few thousand overinflated Bolivar against the dirty greenback anyday!

Gun-toting Yanks hit back!

My last post has caused a bit of a stir in the "land of the brave". It seems you can't criticise the USers* love for murderous tools without being vilified.

The main point against me is that I accused Wayne Chiang of being no better than Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui. I stand firm on my statement, but rather than defend it allow me to add some context.

Wayne Chiang was quoted as saying

"I am a firm believer that if Virginia Tech students were allowed to conceal carry, this situation could have ended sooner."

Let's put that statement into the context of Bush's invasion of Iraq ...

"I am a firm believer that if Iraqi civilians were allowed to conceal carry, this situation could have ended sooner."

Now watch the comments light up as I get a barrage of abuse from pro-war USers* who insist that terrorising the middle east for the sake of black gold is a good thing. LOL!

The truth is that any lackadaisical attitude about guns is more likely to lead to widespread carnage and murderous mayhem than it is to swiftly and simply neutralise a situation like Virginia Tech, Port Arthur, Waco, etc

The promotion of a "right to bear arms" is ludicrous and there is no possible way that governments can ensure responsible gun ownership except through extremely tough gun control laws. Volacious says it best in his comment on my previous post:

"Gun control in America these days is a fairly academic argument... every idiot already has one"

NOTE * :I tried to find where I had first described the civilians of the USA as USers, rather than their incorrect, self-appointed nickname of "Americans" (which technically applies to any resident of the two American continents). Unfortunately I couldn't find it, hence my explanation for its use. Besides I like the double meaning involved in the term "USer" :-)

Falsely accused, but still a monster

He might have been the subject of internet rumour-mongering and false accusations of being the person responsible for today's massacre at Virginia Tech, but despite his protestations of innocence Wayne Chiang is no better than the man who killed 32 people, wounded more, and left a town mourning and a country in shock.

Chiang believes that guns should be allowed on the Virginia Tech campus.

"I am a firm believer that if Virginia Tech students were allowed to conceal carry, this situation could have ended sooner."

Wayne Chiang is a gun-toting cowboy who would have gladly seen even more people brandishing guns that day, with the inevitable end of a shoot-out to shame the OK Coral!

It doesn't concern me that Wayne is being falsely accused - one look at his blog and I'm instantly repulsed.

Care factor zero from me!

My heartfelt sympathy does, however, go to all the families, friends and neighbours affected by this awful tragedy across the globe.

PLEASE .... will the USA consider gun control laws to protect its own people?

Teens uncover 55 year old lie!

Kiwi kids discover drug company lie!

International drugs conglomerate, GlaxoSmithKline, is facing court in New Zealand over misleading advertising, after two high school students discovered that Ribena, a blackcurrant drink it has been promoting for 55 years for its high Vitamin C content, contain very little of the essential nutrient.

The company has admitted to Australia's corporate watchdog, the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) that its marketing was misleading and its given an undertaking to explain the true nutritional makeup of Ribena on its packaging, its website and in future advertising.

And tomorrow the company's New Zealand subsidiary will be in court facing 15 similar charges brought by the ACCC's counterpart, the Commerce Commission, which carry a penalty of up to $3 million in fines.

According to another report in the Sydney Morning Herald it seems that the multinational got confused about the vitamin C content of blackcurrants (which is supposedly 4 times higher than oranges) and the vitamin content of its popular drink.

"Weight for weight, the 'four times' statement is factually correct but we accept that there is a potential for confusion among consumers and have taken the action to remove that claim."

In January, the Herald reported an analysis of popular children's snack foods and beverages by the independent consumer watchdog Choice, which found that Ribena consisted of little more than sugar and water. Its essential ingredient - blackcurrants - made up just 5 per cent of content, the study found, and was a processed product made from concentrate.

Fancy that ... a drug company lying to us! What is the world coming to? LOL!

Walk the walk ... like an Egyptian

Speaking of conspiracies ...

What's the chance that the USA is behind the massive constitutional changes underway in Egypt?

Human rights group Amnesty International has called the changes the greatest erosion of human rights in 26 years

Meanwhile, the USA has only expressed "some concerns" about some of the amendments.

The 34 ammendments will provide, amongst other things, a permanent invocation of emergency laws that have been in place since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, technically ending the longest "emergency" in history. The changes will also:

• give police wider powers of arrest and surveillance.
• ban all religious-based political activity and parties
• remove judicial supervision of elections
• change the previously socialist state into one based on "freedom of economic action"
• give the president powers to refer terrorists to any judicial authority - including military tribunals, which are not subject to appeal
• allow authorities to override articles protecting individual freedoms and privacy

Anyone arguing against these changes are, of course unpatriotic and unAmerican ... I mean unEgyptian!

Anything happen lately?

Apologies for the lack of posts these last 3 months, but life has taken some interesting turns.

Firstly I have commenced, and am entirely enjoying, a new career in recruitment. What an amazing feeling to be doing a job that you love and helping so many people and businesses in the process.

Secondly I have been kept quite busy with parties, events and travel as well as reorganising the home office.

I am looking forward to getting my teeth back into the blogosphere. So much has been happening that it would take several long entries to try and catch up with everything. I won't even attempt it.

Having said that I wish to express my heartfelt sympathy and condolences to the family of Van Nguyen, who was murdered by the Singaporean Judiciary at 6am on the 2nd of December at Changi Prison. A very sad day for Australia, but also just another example of the horrific behaviour of which humanity is capable.

In addition, the passing into law of the industrial relations and the anti-terrorism changes, as well as the incomprehensible riots experienced in Sydney recently, and it is quite clear that the plug has been pulled, the toilet has flushed, and Australia is spiralling down the gurgler at an ever increasing rate.

Bring on the next election!