In the 1999 movie, The Matrix, Morpheus explains to Neo that the world he knows is really just the construct of a computer program:
Morpheus: "The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes; it is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth"
Neo: "what truth is that?"
Morpheus: "That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage; born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch; a prison for your mind."
Whilst the real world may not be a computer simulation, we are still imprisoned by our minds and the influences of propaganda spread by government, corporations and other people, often using fear to control our behaviours, our voting patterns, our shopping habits.
Our fear is driven by our thoughts and perceptions, but very often, NOT from reality. We have been the pawns of government and corporate fear campaigns, whether it was the fear of migrants, the fear of indigenous populations, the fear of communism, the fear of drugs, the fear of Islam, the fear of terrorism, the fear of not having the latest gadget.
Fear is a construct.
Fear may not be a computer simulation, but it is the next best thing. It is a simulation of the real world which plays out in our minds, in our thoughts and then manifests in our behaviours, actions and reactions.
Our thoughts are powerful weapons that we turn first on ourselves and then on others.
Our thoughts are so powerful, that others want to manipulate them. For when you control a person's thoughts, you control the person.
Joseph Goebbels stated "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State'.
We need to question everything that we see and hear. How many people were killed in the name of democracy to prevent the evil scourge of Communism? How many people were killed in the name of Communism to prevent the evil scourge of Capitalism? Whether a person lived in Socialist Moscow or democratic Washington, they were subject to similar propaganda campaigns from their leaders.
Another Nazi, Hermann Goering, stated "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Thought control, propaganda, is all around us. We see it in current affairs shows designed to make us terrified of our neighbours, of migrants, refugees, killer diseases, rebel teenagers, crime! We see it in news articles and even in advertising. We hear it preached from the pulpit that Christianity is being attacked and by politicians declaring our freedoms are under attack.
Yet, it is all nonsense. It is influential leaders manipulating you.
To continue the Matrix analogy you have two choices, you can take the blue pill and stay in your current life without changing your beliefs, or take the red pill and see the truth for yourself. As Morpheus said "you take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill ... and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
You can choose to continue living in the world that you know, which is the carefully constructed manipulation of modern propaganda, or you can choose the reality that exists when you control your own mind and see through the falsehoods.
Bob Marley understood this with words that we should all heed: "emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds".
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Best Australian Blogs 2012 Competition - People's Choice Voting
Ranting Panda has nominated for the 'Best Australian Blogs 2012' competition in the 'Commentary' category. The competition is conducted by the Sydney Writers' Centre.
You can vote for Ranting Panda in the 'People's Choice Award'. Voting in the 'People's Choice Award' commences 13 April 2012 and concludes at 5pm, Wednesday 9 May 2012.
In addition, to the 'People's Choice Award', the Blog will also be considered for a separate award by a panel of judges who will judge it on:
You can vote for Ranting Panda in the 'People's Choice Award'. Voting in the 'People's Choice Award' commences 13 April 2012 and concludes at 5pm, Wednesday 9 May 2012.
To submit your vote, please click on the below link (note that the blog is called 'Ranting Panda'):
Once you've voted, make sure that you click the 'DONE' button so that your vote counts.
We would love for you to vote for Ranting Panda in the 'People's Choice Awards'.
In addition, to the 'People's Choice Award', the Blog will also be considered for a separate award by a panel of judges who will judge it on:
- 70% quality of writing
- 20% presentation and usability
- 10% engagement and social media integration
Finalists for this part of the competition will be announced on 26 April 2012 and Winners announced 10 May 2012.
You can follow the competition on Twitter through #bestblogs2012.
You can follow the competition on Twitter through #bestblogs2012.
Thanks heaps and we hope that this Blog encourages, enlightens and educates you.
P.S. You can also follow Ranting Panda on Twitter @RantingPanda and on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/RantingPanda
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Australia's population dilemma: Grow or Die
Australia has a problem: not enough people. We enjoy a great quality of life, but it is maintained through taxes which provide infrastructure and social support, and high employment which boosts all other sectors. Taxes and employment require one thing: an available and appropriately skilled workforce. Some people may fear that their way of life will be eroded with an increased population, however, a lower population and aging workforce will erode our way of life and force us to work until the day we die.
Australia's population is currently estimated to be around 23,000,000. With a land mass of 7,682,300km2, Australia's population density is approximately 3 people per square kilometre. Compared with other western nations, this is extremely low. The USA for instance has a population density of 32/km2 and the United Kingdom has 660/km2. As of 30 September 2011, Australia's population growth rate is1.4%, down from 2.2% in 2008 (1).
Australia is facing an aging population because of low fertility rates and longer life expectancy. As at 30 June 2007, the median age of Australia's population was 36.8 years. The ABS estimates that by 2056, the median age will be between 41.9 and 45.2 years (2). In 1970/71, 8% of the population was over the age of 65, by 2001/02, 13% was over 65 and it is estimated that by 2040 over 25% of the population will be over 65 (3). That is a lot of old age pensions. In response to the aging population, the Howard government abolished the compulsory retirement age and changed superannuation laws in an effort to reduce the burden on public funds. The Rudd government established the "Future Fund" to assist the Australian government to meet its superannuation liability.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates that Australia's population in 2056 will be between 30,900,000 and 42,500,000, and that by the year 2101, Australia's population will be between 33,700,000 and 62,200,200 (2). These figures are based on assumptions which include the fertility rate between 1.6% and 2% and net immigration ranging between 140,000 and 220,000 persons per year, (note that as of 2011, there were 172,500 immigrants).
There are obviously pros and cons to an increased population and there is almost certainly a tipping point where high population becomes unsustainable. There are some who fear that a high population will erode their standard of living by contributing to higher unemployment, higher crime rates, denser suburban areas and drain government budgets through welfare, infrastructure, education, health, police and so on. However, low population presents its own problems. Australia is a long way from reaching unsustainable levels of population. If anything, it is in danger of having a population too low to sustain itself. The aging workforce is obviously one of those areas.
Whilst Australia does have a lot of land, much of it is remote so the population tends to gather in the capital cities. Many of the inhabitants of rural and remote areas have been primary producers. Over the years, Australia's primary industries have been depleted as cheap produce is imported, resulting in many rural towns struggling as farms close down and their populations migrate to larger regional or metropolitan centres. Contributing to this problem, Australia's exports are decreasing, while imports are increasing, with the obvious destructive effect on agriculture, as well as the manufacturing and retail sectors. There is a benefit to the economy, for the government and the population to general, to develop, encourage and support agriculture and other primary industries.
Australia's retail sector is struggling because of a number of factors, such as lower consumer confidence following the Global Financial Crisis and high levels of consumer debt impacting disposable income. An increased population will boost retail sales as people require food, clothing, motor vehicles, furniture and other commodities. This increased demand on the retail sector will provide more job opportunities as retailers, new and existing, respond to consumer needs.
A larger population means more tax payers who are able to fund the creation and expansion of infrastructure. This in itself, creates employment opportunities, increasing the tax collected by government and increasing consumer demand on the retail and housing sectors and benefiting the construction, manufacturing and technology industries.
The fear of dense suburban areas is certainly one that has been realised in Melbourne and Sydney as local councils approve high density housing developments. Compare these poor examples of urban planning to Queensland, where the State Government developed Springfield Lakes, a city constructed south-west of Brisbane which was designer built to reduce housing density, minimise the requirement for car travel, optimise walking and cycling and encourage use of public transport. One third of Springfield Lakes is dedicated to open space.
Australia has a huge amount of livable and currently uninhabited land. The development of this land, is possible and requires intelligent planning and the construction of all manner of infrastructure, not least of which is irrigation, presenting much opportunity for research, development, construction and maintenance. Some argue that Australia is too arid, yet 62% of the continent is suitable for agriculture. (4)
The size of the country allows for a much larger population, however, governments need to do it responsibly and intelligently with a focus on sustainability and development and encouragement of primary, secondary and tertiary industries. With a greater labour pool, there must be a focus on education and development of a skilled workforce, including medical professionals, engineers and tradespeople. With low population, there are fewer opportunities for skilling the workforce and less demand for their skills.
All levels of government should be striving to develop communities that provide a high quality of life.
Australia needs a higher population in order to maintain and ultimately improve its standard of living.
References:
All references accessed 12 April 2012.
(1) Australian Bureau of Statistics, '3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Sep 2011'. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0
(2) Australian Bureau of Statistics, '3220.0 - Population Projections Australia, 2006 to 2101'. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0
(3) Australian Government, The Treasury, 'Australia's Demographic Challenges'. http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/html/adc-04.asp
(4) Australian Natural Resources Atlas, 'Land Use - Australia', Land use patterns in Australia.
http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/land/landuse/index.html
Australia's population is currently estimated to be around 23,000,000. With a land mass of 7,682,300km2, Australia's population density is approximately 3 people per square kilometre. Compared with other western nations, this is extremely low. The USA for instance has a population density of 32/km2 and the United Kingdom has 660/km2. As of 30 September 2011, Australia's population growth rate is1.4%, down from 2.2% in 2008 (1).
Australia is facing an aging population because of low fertility rates and longer life expectancy. As at 30 June 2007, the median age of Australia's population was 36.8 years. The ABS estimates that by 2056, the median age will be between 41.9 and 45.2 years (2). In 1970/71, 8% of the population was over the age of 65, by 2001/02, 13% was over 65 and it is estimated that by 2040 over 25% of the population will be over 65 (3). That is a lot of old age pensions. In response to the aging population, the Howard government abolished the compulsory retirement age and changed superannuation laws in an effort to reduce the burden on public funds. The Rudd government established the "Future Fund" to assist the Australian government to meet its superannuation liability.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates that Australia's population in 2056 will be between 30,900,000 and 42,500,000, and that by the year 2101, Australia's population will be between 33,700,000 and 62,200,200 (2). These figures are based on assumptions which include the fertility rate between 1.6% and 2% and net immigration ranging between 140,000 and 220,000 persons per year, (note that as of 2011, there were 172,500 immigrants).
There are obviously pros and cons to an increased population and there is almost certainly a tipping point where high population becomes unsustainable. There are some who fear that a high population will erode their standard of living by contributing to higher unemployment, higher crime rates, denser suburban areas and drain government budgets through welfare, infrastructure, education, health, police and so on. However, low population presents its own problems. Australia is a long way from reaching unsustainable levels of population. If anything, it is in danger of having a population too low to sustain itself. The aging workforce is obviously one of those areas.
Whilst Australia does have a lot of land, much of it is remote so the population tends to gather in the capital cities. Many of the inhabitants of rural and remote areas have been primary producers. Over the years, Australia's primary industries have been depleted as cheap produce is imported, resulting in many rural towns struggling as farms close down and their populations migrate to larger regional or metropolitan centres. Contributing to this problem, Australia's exports are decreasing, while imports are increasing, with the obvious destructive effect on agriculture, as well as the manufacturing and retail sectors. There is a benefit to the economy, for the government and the population to general, to develop, encourage and support agriculture and other primary industries.
Australia's retail sector is struggling because of a number of factors, such as lower consumer confidence following the Global Financial Crisis and high levels of consumer debt impacting disposable income. An increased population will boost retail sales as people require food, clothing, motor vehicles, furniture and other commodities. This increased demand on the retail sector will provide more job opportunities as retailers, new and existing, respond to consumer needs.
A larger population means more tax payers who are able to fund the creation and expansion of infrastructure. This in itself, creates employment opportunities, increasing the tax collected by government and increasing consumer demand on the retail and housing sectors and benefiting the construction, manufacturing and technology industries.
The fear of dense suburban areas is certainly one that has been realised in Melbourne and Sydney as local councils approve high density housing developments. Compare these poor examples of urban planning to Queensland, where the State Government developed Springfield Lakes, a city constructed south-west of Brisbane which was designer built to reduce housing density, minimise the requirement for car travel, optimise walking and cycling and encourage use of public transport. One third of Springfield Lakes is dedicated to open space.
Australia has a huge amount of livable and currently uninhabited land. The development of this land, is possible and requires intelligent planning and the construction of all manner of infrastructure, not least of which is irrigation, presenting much opportunity for research, development, construction and maintenance. Some argue that Australia is too arid, yet 62% of the continent is suitable for agriculture. (4)
The size of the country allows for a much larger population, however, governments need to do it responsibly and intelligently with a focus on sustainability and development and encouragement of primary, secondary and tertiary industries. With a greater labour pool, there must be a focus on education and development of a skilled workforce, including medical professionals, engineers and tradespeople. With low population, there are fewer opportunities for skilling the workforce and less demand for their skills.
All levels of government should be striving to develop communities that provide a high quality of life.
Australia needs a higher population in order to maintain and ultimately improve its standard of living.
References:
All references accessed 12 April 2012.
(1) Australian Bureau of Statistics, '3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Sep 2011'. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0
(2) Australian Bureau of Statistics, '3220.0 - Population Projections Australia, 2006 to 2101'. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0
(3) Australian Government, The Treasury, 'Australia's Demographic Challenges'. http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/html/adc-04.asp
(4) Australian Natural Resources Atlas, 'Land Use - Australia', Land use patterns in Australia.
http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/land/landuse/index.html
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Revolutionary Jesus v Empire & Religion (an Easter Tale)
Easter is obviously one of the crucial events for Christians as it commemorates the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus was crucified as an atonement for all sins committed by mankind.
As background, in the Old Testament, God required an animal sacrifice as atonement for sin, usually this was the sacrifice of a lamb without spot or blemish. In the New Testament, Jesus as the son of man and God, becomes this sacrifice, hence Him being called the Lamb of God. However, He wasn't just required to die, he was required to live. According to the bible, Jesus conquered death and hell, through his resurrection on the third day, enabling Christians to enter into heaven and eternal life.
Jesus had managed to upset the religious leaders of the day. He was heavily critical of the Pharisees and Sadduccees for their hypocrisy, for their love of money and for making overt displays of their wealth. At one stage, Jesus stormed into the temple and threw out the money-changers and others who were defiling the temple by turning it into a place of business.
Jesus was arrested by Temple guards at the direction of the Supreme Court of Israel, the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin were Jews, not Romans. It was the Sanhedrin who sentenced Jesus to death. After sentencing, Jesus was paraded before the Roman Prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate, who stated that he could see no crime that Jesus had committed. Around the same time, a man named Jesus Barabbas was arrested for sedition. As it was Passover, the custom was for one prisoner to be released based on the wishes of the local Jews. When given the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, the crowd chose Barabbas. Pontius Pilate did not agree with the execution of Jesus and washed his hands of responsibility as he gave the crowd what they wanted.
Interestingly, Jesus and Barabbas were both revolutionaries, they both shared the same first name and even Barabbas's surname reflected one of the names of Jesus. Barabbas literally translates as "Son of the Father" (bar = son of, abba = Father). Yet, Jesus was the one who had opposed the religious leaders, while Barabbas had opposed the Roman Empire.
The crowd chose Barabbas, perhaps because he was seen as leading them from under the yoke of Roman Imperialism, while they welcomed the yoke and hypocrisy of religious fundamentalism as it was used by the priests to manipulate their thoughts, fears and lives.
There is an old saying that "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
In Jesus's day, the religious leaders had influenced the ruling council, the Sanhedrin in order to arrest Jesus and stop the undermining of their authority.
Today we see the rise of religious fundamentalism as it influences the highest levels of government and seeks to tear down those who dare undermine the influence of its powerful religious leaders. Religious fundamentalism supports "smaller government" and yet demands government intervention through the banning of abortion, homosexuality and non-Christian religions (in particular, Islam). Religious fundamentalists tend to be pro-gun, pro-war, pro-big business and against public expenditure on health, education and welfare. Their churches have been turned into large commercial enterprises. In fact, much of religious fundamentalism is opposed to almost everything that Christ stood for.
Jesus commanded us to love God, to love our neighbour, to turn the other cheek when persecuted, to forgive our enemies, to live in peace with everyone, to give up material possessions and share our wealth, to care for the poor, the homeless, the orphan, the refugee. Jesus passed little judgement on the government; in fact, he stated that we should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Jesus directed his judgement at the organised religion of the day.
Were Jesus to have lived during the 21st century, he would have criticised the religious hypocrisy of the day, the rise of the mega-church and the franchising of religion. Many Christian fundamentalists are critical of the Catholic Church and its wealth, yet the empire that is Christianity is worth billions in retail sales, while churches are run as businesses, reliant on their balance sheets and profit and loss statements.
Modern Christianity more closely resembles the behaviour of the Pharisees and Sadducees than it does the teachings and example set by Jesus Christ.
If Jesus was born in recent times, there would be no shortage of people choosing to crucify Him in place of a modern day Barabbas.
As background, in the Old Testament, God required an animal sacrifice as atonement for sin, usually this was the sacrifice of a lamb without spot or blemish. In the New Testament, Jesus as the son of man and God, becomes this sacrifice, hence Him being called the Lamb of God. However, He wasn't just required to die, he was required to live. According to the bible, Jesus conquered death and hell, through his resurrection on the third day, enabling Christians to enter into heaven and eternal life.
Jesus had managed to upset the religious leaders of the day. He was heavily critical of the Pharisees and Sadduccees for their hypocrisy, for their love of money and for making overt displays of their wealth. At one stage, Jesus stormed into the temple and threw out the money-changers and others who were defiling the temple by turning it into a place of business.
Jesus was arrested by Temple guards at the direction of the Supreme Court of Israel, the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin were Jews, not Romans. It was the Sanhedrin who sentenced Jesus to death. After sentencing, Jesus was paraded before the Roman Prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate, who stated that he could see no crime that Jesus had committed. Around the same time, a man named Jesus Barabbas was arrested for sedition. As it was Passover, the custom was for one prisoner to be released based on the wishes of the local Jews. When given the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, the crowd chose Barabbas. Pontius Pilate did not agree with the execution of Jesus and washed his hands of responsibility as he gave the crowd what they wanted.
Interestingly, Jesus and Barabbas were both revolutionaries, they both shared the same first name and even Barabbas's surname reflected one of the names of Jesus. Barabbas literally translates as "Son of the Father" (bar = son of, abba = Father). Yet, Jesus was the one who had opposed the religious leaders, while Barabbas had opposed the Roman Empire.
The crowd chose Barabbas, perhaps because he was seen as leading them from under the yoke of Roman Imperialism, while they welcomed the yoke and hypocrisy of religious fundamentalism as it was used by the priests to manipulate their thoughts, fears and lives.
There is an old saying that "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
In Jesus's day, the religious leaders had influenced the ruling council, the Sanhedrin in order to arrest Jesus and stop the undermining of their authority.
Today we see the rise of religious fundamentalism as it influences the highest levels of government and seeks to tear down those who dare undermine the influence of its powerful religious leaders. Religious fundamentalism supports "smaller government" and yet demands government intervention through the banning of abortion, homosexuality and non-Christian religions (in particular, Islam). Religious fundamentalists tend to be pro-gun, pro-war, pro-big business and against public expenditure on health, education and welfare. Their churches have been turned into large commercial enterprises. In fact, much of religious fundamentalism is opposed to almost everything that Christ stood for.
Jesus commanded us to love God, to love our neighbour, to turn the other cheek when persecuted, to forgive our enemies, to live in peace with everyone, to give up material possessions and share our wealth, to care for the poor, the homeless, the orphan, the refugee. Jesus passed little judgement on the government; in fact, he stated that we should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Jesus directed his judgement at the organised religion of the day.
Were Jesus to have lived during the 21st century, he would have criticised the religious hypocrisy of the day, the rise of the mega-church and the franchising of religion. Many Christian fundamentalists are critical of the Catholic Church and its wealth, yet the empire that is Christianity is worth billions in retail sales, while churches are run as businesses, reliant on their balance sheets and profit and loss statements.
Modern Christianity more closely resembles the behaviour of the Pharisees and Sadducees than it does the teachings and example set by Jesus Christ.
If Jesus was born in recent times, there would be no shortage of people choosing to crucify Him in place of a modern day Barabbas.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
The Tragedy of East Timor - Australia's complicity and cover-up
For decades Australia and the rest of the world has stood by as East Timor was raped by Indonesia's Suharto regime.
East Timor, was a small, Portuguese colony of no threat to any nation. In 1975, the Portuguese withdrew from East Timor, essentially granting them independence. The Australian government under Prime Minister Gough Whitlam developed the policy that East Timor should be integrated into Indonesia. In 1999, the Australian government released some documents from that period which quote Mr Whitlam as saying that Portuguese Timor should be integrated into Indonesia. Of course, the East Timorese saw things differently and in November 1975, East Timor declared independence.
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, resulting in the massacre of thousands of East Timorese. Five Australian journalists reported on this invasion as it unfolded and reported Indonesian massacres of East Timorese, reporting it back to Australia. The Australian government stood idly by as the massacres unfolded. The journalists were eventually captured and murdered by the Indonesian military. From the onset of the invasion and the subsequent occupation, Indonesia received financial and military aid from each Australian government (Labor and Liberal) between 1974 and 1999.
In 2012, Federal Attorney General, Nikola Roxon, refused to release government cables regarding East Timor from 1975 and declined to state the reason. Associate Professor Clinton Fernandes of the University of New South Wales believes that the cables reveal Australia's complicity in the mass starvation of 100,000 East Timorese following the Indonesian invasion (1).
On 17 March 2012, at a seminar on the Middle East and the Arab Spring, Gareth Evans presented a speech which included reference to NATO's "Responsibility to Protect". A policy which ostensibly is used to invade countries on the pretext of removing inhumane dictators and the liberation of their people; surreptiously this policy is more about shoring up NATO military and strategic interests in the particular country. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Fransisco, also addressed the delegates at this seminar.
In his speech, Zunes accused Evans of supporting atrocities in East Timor while ensuring that Australia had access to East Timor's oil through the 1986 signing of the Timor Gap Treaty, which the Foreign Minister Evans signed with Indonesia. Evans was so outraged by this accusation that after the speech, he marched over to Zunes and screamed at him "who the fuck are you? where the fuck are you from?". Evans continued the tirade and stated that Zunes deserved "a smack on the nose". (2)
The 1975 invasion and subsequent occupation by Indonesia was brutal. It is estimated that under Suharto, around 200,000 East Timorese were killed; one third of its population. All the while, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States stood by and lavished praises and aid on Suharto. Some of the Indonesian jets used to bomb East Timorese villages were supplied by the United Kingdom. Margaret Thatcher, former UK Prime Minister once told Suharto "you are one of our very best and most valuable friends".
Following the resignation of President Suharto in 1999, East Timor eventually won its independence. Australia's then Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, claimed that Australia's intervention was out of humanitarian concern. Yet in his book, "Reluctant Saviour", Clinton Fernandes reveals that the Howard government initially opposed independence in order to maintain Indonesian rule. Fernandes asserts in his book, that it was only through independence activists and the public that Howard was forced to send a peace-keeping force and to support the move to independence. (3)
From 1999 to 2003, Australia provided significant financial and military aid to East Timor. In 2003, this was used as leverage by Alexander Downer to ensure that Australia's interests in East Timor's oil and gas reserves were maintained in Australia's favour. Downer reminded East Timor of its assistance during the 1999 independence and of the aid being provided. Australia even withdrew funding for an East Timorese human rights NGO, Forum Tau Matan after it was revealed that they and eleven other NGO's had signed a statement daring to criticise Australia's aggressive approach to East Timor's oil and gas reserves and accusing Australia of "stealing natural resources that rightfully belong to East Timor". (4)
In 2006, this imposition of Australian power resulted in an agreement which allowed Australia to continue exploiting East Timor's oil and gas reserves for 50 years with no defined geographical boundary to limit access or to protect East Timor. This has cost East Timor billions of dollars in lost revenue from reserves which it owns.
Currently, East Timor is in the midst of elections. Australia will be taking a close interest in the results as one of the issues that has emerged is the management of East Timor's oil and gas reserves. East Timor has been wanting to process oil on their own land, however, Australia has been avoiding this. An emerging threat is now from China, who has been negotiating with East Timor to process their oil. East Timor has indicated that if Australia, through Woodside Petroleum, doesn't build pipelines from the oil reserves to East Timor, then they may look at other avenues to have this constructed. Australia has a keen financial interest in seeing the "right" government elected in East Timor.
For decades, Australia's involvement in East Timor has always been in its own interests whilst being complicit in the genocide of the population and actively raping its natural reserves.
Instead of claiming that Australia's involvement is solely for the greater good (as decreed on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website) (5), Australia should come clean on its history and motives in the area and actively work to genuinely assist East Timor.
The Indonesian genocide may have ended, but the East Timorese still face poverty and starvation as their own resources and potential profits are lost to Australia in a disgraceful abuse of hegemony and capitalism.
References:
All references accessed 6 April 2012.
(1) Matt Peacock, 21 March 2012, 'Roxon blocks release of East Timor Cables', ABC News Online,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-21/roxon-blocks-release-of-east-timor-cables/3904532
(2) Matt Buchanan and Scott Ellis, 20 March 2012, 'A Spread of Fear - Professor Gets Hell From Evans', Sydney Morning Herald Online. http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/a-spread-of-fear-20120319-1vfuy.html
(3) Clinton Fernandes (2005), Reluctant Saviour: Australia, Indonesia and the Independence of East Timor, Scribe Short Books.
(4) Peter Ellis, 30 May 2007, 'Lying for your country'.
http://newmatilda.com/2007/05/30/lying-your-country
(5) Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 'East Timor Country Brief', http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/east_timor/east_timor_brief.html
East Timor, was a small, Portuguese colony of no threat to any nation. In 1975, the Portuguese withdrew from East Timor, essentially granting them independence. The Australian government under Prime Minister Gough Whitlam developed the policy that East Timor should be integrated into Indonesia. In 1999, the Australian government released some documents from that period which quote Mr Whitlam as saying that Portuguese Timor should be integrated into Indonesia. Of course, the East Timorese saw things differently and in November 1975, East Timor declared independence.
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, resulting in the massacre of thousands of East Timorese. Five Australian journalists reported on this invasion as it unfolded and reported Indonesian massacres of East Timorese, reporting it back to Australia. The Australian government stood idly by as the massacres unfolded. The journalists were eventually captured and murdered by the Indonesian military. From the onset of the invasion and the subsequent occupation, Indonesia received financial and military aid from each Australian government (Labor and Liberal) between 1974 and 1999.
In 2012, Federal Attorney General, Nikola Roxon, refused to release government cables regarding East Timor from 1975 and declined to state the reason. Associate Professor Clinton Fernandes of the University of New South Wales believes that the cables reveal Australia's complicity in the mass starvation of 100,000 East Timorese following the Indonesian invasion (1).
On 17 March 2012, at a seminar on the Middle East and the Arab Spring, Gareth Evans presented a speech which included reference to NATO's "Responsibility to Protect". A policy which ostensibly is used to invade countries on the pretext of removing inhumane dictators and the liberation of their people; surreptiously this policy is more about shoring up NATO military and strategic interests in the particular country. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Fransisco, also addressed the delegates at this seminar.
In his speech, Zunes accused Evans of supporting atrocities in East Timor while ensuring that Australia had access to East Timor's oil through the 1986 signing of the Timor Gap Treaty, which the Foreign Minister Evans signed with Indonesia. Evans was so outraged by this accusation that after the speech, he marched over to Zunes and screamed at him "who the fuck are you? where the fuck are you from?". Evans continued the tirade and stated that Zunes deserved "a smack on the nose". (2)
The 1975 invasion and subsequent occupation by Indonesia was brutal. It is estimated that under Suharto, around 200,000 East Timorese were killed; one third of its population. All the while, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States stood by and lavished praises and aid on Suharto. Some of the Indonesian jets used to bomb East Timorese villages were supplied by the United Kingdom. Margaret Thatcher, former UK Prime Minister once told Suharto "you are one of our very best and most valuable friends".
Following the resignation of President Suharto in 1999, East Timor eventually won its independence. Australia's then Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, claimed that Australia's intervention was out of humanitarian concern. Yet in his book, "Reluctant Saviour", Clinton Fernandes reveals that the Howard government initially opposed independence in order to maintain Indonesian rule. Fernandes asserts in his book, that it was only through independence activists and the public that Howard was forced to send a peace-keeping force and to support the move to independence. (3)
From 1999 to 2003, Australia provided significant financial and military aid to East Timor. In 2003, this was used as leverage by Alexander Downer to ensure that Australia's interests in East Timor's oil and gas reserves were maintained in Australia's favour. Downer reminded East Timor of its assistance during the 1999 independence and of the aid being provided. Australia even withdrew funding for an East Timorese human rights NGO, Forum Tau Matan after it was revealed that they and eleven other NGO's had signed a statement daring to criticise Australia's aggressive approach to East Timor's oil and gas reserves and accusing Australia of "stealing natural resources that rightfully belong to East Timor". (4)
In 2006, this imposition of Australian power resulted in an agreement which allowed Australia to continue exploiting East Timor's oil and gas reserves for 50 years with no defined geographical boundary to limit access or to protect East Timor. This has cost East Timor billions of dollars in lost revenue from reserves which it owns.
Currently, East Timor is in the midst of elections. Australia will be taking a close interest in the results as one of the issues that has emerged is the management of East Timor's oil and gas reserves. East Timor has been wanting to process oil on their own land, however, Australia has been avoiding this. An emerging threat is now from China, who has been negotiating with East Timor to process their oil. East Timor has indicated that if Australia, through Woodside Petroleum, doesn't build pipelines from the oil reserves to East Timor, then they may look at other avenues to have this constructed. Australia has a keen financial interest in seeing the "right" government elected in East Timor.
For decades, Australia's involvement in East Timor has always been in its own interests whilst being complicit in the genocide of the population and actively raping its natural reserves.
Instead of claiming that Australia's involvement is solely for the greater good (as decreed on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website) (5), Australia should come clean on its history and motives in the area and actively work to genuinely assist East Timor.
The Indonesian genocide may have ended, but the East Timorese still face poverty and starvation as their own resources and potential profits are lost to Australia in a disgraceful abuse of hegemony and capitalism.
References:
All references accessed 6 April 2012.
(1) Matt Peacock, 21 March 2012, 'Roxon blocks release of East Timor Cables', ABC News Online,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-21/roxon-blocks-release-of-east-timor-cables/3904532
(2) Matt Buchanan and Scott Ellis, 20 March 2012, 'A Spread of Fear - Professor Gets Hell From Evans', Sydney Morning Herald Online. http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/a-spread-of-fear-20120319-1vfuy.html
(3) Clinton Fernandes (2005), Reluctant Saviour: Australia, Indonesia and the Independence of East Timor, Scribe Short Books.
(4) Peter Ellis, 30 May 2007, 'Lying for your country'.
http://newmatilda.com/2007/05/30/lying-your-country
(5) Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 'East Timor Country Brief', http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/east_timor/east_timor_brief.html
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Politics is always funny until someone gets burnt at the stake
The "Christian-aligned" Tea Party are complaining, protesting and even challenging Obamacare; a policy of President Barack Obama which will enable millions of poorer Americans to have health care insurance, something which they have previously been denied. Without health care, many of them suffer without treatment, many of them die.
Yet, the Tea Party are complaining that the government should not be able to tell them what to do. This is in keeping with Tea Party practices of demanding that government tell people what they can NOT do, such as:
- you can NOT be gay and you certainly can NOT marry someone of the same gender,
- you can NOT have appropriate birth control and you certainly can NOT have an abortion (even if it might save your life),
- you can NOT belong to a religion other than Christianity and you certainly can NOT be Muslim,
- you can NOT be pro-Peace and you certainly can NOT criticise the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ... or the calls for war on Iran,
- you can NOT be pro-Palestine and you certainly can NOT criticise Israel's violations of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency,
- you can NOT be pro-Human Rights and you certainly can NOT criticise American foreign policy which has cost thousands of innocent lives in foreign countries ....
The Tea Party opposes government sponsored social welfare schemes, but supports government sponsored corporate welfare. They want economic liberalism, a laissez faire economy, until the greed of unfettered capitalism crashes and then they expect government to bail out the corporate despots who caused the problem in the first place. They demand smaller government ... except when it comes to Defence and Police, but leave Education and Health to be delivered by profit-driven companies.
You Go Tea Party ... no, seriously, please ... go ... now ... back to the Dark Ages ... or better still - please, pretty please, read your Bibles - you know the verses about love, peace and caring for the poor, the oppressed, the widow, the stranger. Jesus was not a war mongering, capitalist, He commanded us to love all and to care for all - even the least of these!
You Go Tea Party ... no, seriously, please ... go ... now ... back to the Dark Ages ... or better still - please, pretty please, read your Bibles - you know the verses about love, peace and caring for the poor, the oppressed, the widow, the stranger. Jesus was not a war mongering, capitalist, He commanded us to love all and to care for all - even the least of these!
Politics is always funny until someone gets burnt at the stake!
Starter scriptures for love, peace, caring for all
Matthew 22:37 & 39 - "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind and ... you shall love your neighbour as yourself".
Matthew 25:45 - "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me".
Matthew 25:31-46 - Parable of the sheep and the goats
Matthew 5:1-12 - The Beatitudes
John 13:35 - "by this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another".
1 John 4:20-21 - "If someone says 'I love God' but hates his brother, he is a liar, for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God, whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God, must love his brother also".
And let us not forget scripture about sharing the wealth - something which America seems to be sadly lacking:
Exodus 16-17: "This is the thing which the Lord has commanded: 'Let every man gather it according to each one's need, one omer for each person, according to the number of persons; let every man take for those who are in his tent'. Then the Children of Israel did so and gathered, some more, some less. So when they measured it by omers, he who had gathered much had nothing left over, and he who had gathered little had no lack. Every man had gathered according to each one's need".
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Silence is the loudest scream
Freedom of expression is proudly held by democracies as a beacon of liberty compared to restrictive regimes such as China, North Korea, the former Soviet Union and various Middle Eastern states, such as Syria and Saudi Arabia.
This pride in our liberty is also a risk to our freedom as we become complacent about legislation introduced to "protect" us.
Vilification laws in Australia make it "unlawful to insult, humiliate, offend or intimidate another person or group in public on the basis of their race". These laws have been criticised by some right-wing politicians and a few Christian groups who feel that they are being unfairly targetted and that they should be able to criticise others. Interestingly, some of these critics line up to have Muslims prosecuted for similar speech, to have them banned from certain expression, such as wearing a burqa and often oppose permits for the construction of mosques.
The difficult aspect for anyone who wants freedom of expression is that the "other side" will also benefit. There will always be those who state opinions that we disagree with, that we might even find offensive. In Australia there are defamation laws which can be used to protect a person's reputation. Since 9/11 the political debate in the West has heated up and become more aggressive with attacks on individuals and racial or religious stereotypes.
Does freedom of expression mean that we can say whatever we want without impunity or should there still be some boundaries around that freedom. The moment we limit freedom of expression, is it truly freedom? We live in a free country, but that doesn't mean that the country is free from law. There would be few citizens who want to live in anarchy. Laws are there for a reason. Most laws are designed to protect people from the destructive actions of others. Vilification laws are designed for the same reason. But do these laws go too far?
Vilification law was introduced to hopefully prevent the sort of extremist propaganda that led to Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews and other abhorrent events, however, the irony is that it also leads to the same censorship and book-burning behaviour of the Nazis, Stalin's Soviet Union and the medieval Catholic Church.
The freedoms that we boast of in democratic nations are undermined by a variety of censorship laws.
On a day now known as Black Tuesday, 22 November 2011, South Africa passed the 'Protection of Information Bill' (1), a piece of doublespeak more popularly known as the 'Secrecy Bill', which prohibits the disclosing or possessing of information deemed classified by the government. A person found guilty could face up to 25 years in prison. Whilst it is understandable that the government wants to protect State secrets, the law also applies to whistle-blowers, so could encourage corruption within government to fester. The Act does acknowledge the importance of freedom of expression but then references numerous categories of information which are protected, including economic, commercial and political information. In addition to this Act, the ANC is considering a tribunal for disciplining journalists (2). Journalists and civil rights activists in South Africa are understandably concerned. (3)
On 25 July 2011, the Israeli Knesset passed the "Bill for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott - 2011" (4). The resultant Act will make it an offense for anyone to demand or participate in an "economic, cultural or academic" boycotts to "purchase products or services produced or provided in the State of Israel, in any of its institutions or in an area under its control". Areas under its control, include the illegal settlements that violate UN resolutions. Essentially, Israel has made it illegal to protest against illegal activity. The Act will allow for those targetted by boycotts to sue and be recompensed irrespective of actual losses incurred. Freedom of expression? Ironically, the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, once said "the test of democracy is freedom of criticism".
Following 9/11, the United States government introduced the highly secretive "United and Strengthening by Providing Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act", another piece of Orwellian doublespeak more popularly known as the "Patriot Act". This Act stifles freedom of expression and limits what journalists and other writers can report. (5) Even reporting on parts of the Act is a criminal offense. Usually, ignorance of the law is no defense, so how does that stand when the public are not allowed to be informed of the contents of the Act. Even more sinister is the discovery that the Act has power beyond the United States, giving the USA secret access to cloud stored data of other sovereign nations without the knowledge or permission of those nations. (6) Interestingly, President John F. Kennedy once stated "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".
What do we want? Freedom of expression - which gives everyone freedom to state what they want, whether we like what they say or not and whether they criticise or expose government behaviours ... or do we want to curb some of the vitriolic speech and whistle-blowing through vilification laws, secrecy bills and 'patriot' acts?
Personally, I would prefer fewer laws and the ability to speak and write freely! I'm not advocating anarchy of expression as there are existing laws against defamation, violence and property damage that can be used to prosecute those whose opinions result in, or encourage, behaviours harmful to others. However, we do not need more laws controlling what we can and can't say or write.
Whilst I do not agree with the bigoted and ignorant vitriol espoused by some of the so-called journalists in our media, I fear it is a slippery slope when we start censoring journalism and either banning the reporting of, or ordering writers to sanitise, certain events or their own opinions.
It is this freedom to express ourselves and our beliefs, that provides the backdrop to history as it unfolds. History is more than events, it is comprised of the life experience of millions of individuals expressed through writing and speech.
Silence this and we silence humanity.
Freedom of Expression quotes
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall in "The Friends of Voltaire".
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" - Noam Chomsky.
"Here is my advice as we begin the century that will lead to 2081. First, guard the freedom of ideas at all costs. Be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to over-simplify. And don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression." - Gerard K. O'Neill, 2081.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime". Potter Stewart.
"The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion". Henry Steele Commager.
"Without words, without writing and without books there would be no history, there could be no concept of humanity", Herman Hesse
"Silence is the loudest scream", anonymous.
References:
All references accessed 25 March 2012.
1. Republic of South Africa, 'Protection of Information Bill'. http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=118894
2. David Smith, 21 November 2011, 'Black Tuesday' protests to mark likely passing of South African Secrecy Bill' - The Guardian online. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/21/black-tuesday-protests-south-africa-secrecy
3. Charlayne Hunter-Gault, 22 November 2011, 'Black Tuesday in South Africa', The New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/11/black-tuesday-in-south-africa.html
4. Human Rights Watch, 13 July 2011, 'Israel: anti-boycott bill stifles free expression'. http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/13/israel-anti-boycott-bill-stifles-expression
5. Bill of Rights Defense Committee, 'First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Assembly', http://www.bordc.org/threats/speech.php
6. Zack Whittaker, 12 October 2011, 'Newspaper sues government to reveal 'secret' Patriot Act interpretation', ZDNet, http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/newspaper-sues-government-to-reveal-secret-patriot-act-interpretation/60407
This pride in our liberty is also a risk to our freedom as we become complacent about legislation introduced to "protect" us.
Vilification laws in Australia make it "unlawful to insult, humiliate, offend or intimidate another person or group in public on the basis of their race". These laws have been criticised by some right-wing politicians and a few Christian groups who feel that they are being unfairly targetted and that they should be able to criticise others. Interestingly, some of these critics line up to have Muslims prosecuted for similar speech, to have them banned from certain expression, such as wearing a burqa and often oppose permits for the construction of mosques.
The difficult aspect for anyone who wants freedom of expression is that the "other side" will also benefit. There will always be those who state opinions that we disagree with, that we might even find offensive. In Australia there are defamation laws which can be used to protect a person's reputation. Since 9/11 the political debate in the West has heated up and become more aggressive with attacks on individuals and racial or religious stereotypes.
Does freedom of expression mean that we can say whatever we want without impunity or should there still be some boundaries around that freedom. The moment we limit freedom of expression, is it truly freedom? We live in a free country, but that doesn't mean that the country is free from law. There would be few citizens who want to live in anarchy. Laws are there for a reason. Most laws are designed to protect people from the destructive actions of others. Vilification laws are designed for the same reason. But do these laws go too far?
Vilification law was introduced to hopefully prevent the sort of extremist propaganda that led to Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews and other abhorrent events, however, the irony is that it also leads to the same censorship and book-burning behaviour of the Nazis, Stalin's Soviet Union and the medieval Catholic Church.
The freedoms that we boast of in democratic nations are undermined by a variety of censorship laws.
On a day now known as Black Tuesday, 22 November 2011, South Africa passed the 'Protection of Information Bill' (1), a piece of doublespeak more popularly known as the 'Secrecy Bill', which prohibits the disclosing or possessing of information deemed classified by the government. A person found guilty could face up to 25 years in prison. Whilst it is understandable that the government wants to protect State secrets, the law also applies to whistle-blowers, so could encourage corruption within government to fester. The Act does acknowledge the importance of freedom of expression but then references numerous categories of information which are protected, including economic, commercial and political information. In addition to this Act, the ANC is considering a tribunal for disciplining journalists (2). Journalists and civil rights activists in South Africa are understandably concerned. (3)
On 25 July 2011, the Israeli Knesset passed the "Bill for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott - 2011" (4). The resultant Act will make it an offense for anyone to demand or participate in an "economic, cultural or academic" boycotts to "purchase products or services produced or provided in the State of Israel, in any of its institutions or in an area under its control". Areas under its control, include the illegal settlements that violate UN resolutions. Essentially, Israel has made it illegal to protest against illegal activity. The Act will allow for those targetted by boycotts to sue and be recompensed irrespective of actual losses incurred. Freedom of expression? Ironically, the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, once said "the test of democracy is freedom of criticism".
Following 9/11, the United States government introduced the highly secretive "United and Strengthening by Providing Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act", another piece of Orwellian doublespeak more popularly known as the "Patriot Act". This Act stifles freedom of expression and limits what journalists and other writers can report. (5) Even reporting on parts of the Act is a criminal offense. Usually, ignorance of the law is no defense, so how does that stand when the public are not allowed to be informed of the contents of the Act. Even more sinister is the discovery that the Act has power beyond the United States, giving the USA secret access to cloud stored data of other sovereign nations without the knowledge or permission of those nations. (6) Interestingly, President John F. Kennedy once stated "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".
What do we want? Freedom of expression - which gives everyone freedom to state what they want, whether we like what they say or not and whether they criticise or expose government behaviours ... or do we want to curb some of the vitriolic speech and whistle-blowing through vilification laws, secrecy bills and 'patriot' acts?
Personally, I would prefer fewer laws and the ability to speak and write freely! I'm not advocating anarchy of expression as there are existing laws against defamation, violence and property damage that can be used to prosecute those whose opinions result in, or encourage, behaviours harmful to others. However, we do not need more laws controlling what we can and can't say or write.
Whilst I do not agree with the bigoted and ignorant vitriol espoused by some of the so-called journalists in our media, I fear it is a slippery slope when we start censoring journalism and either banning the reporting of, or ordering writers to sanitise, certain events or their own opinions.
It is this freedom to express ourselves and our beliefs, that provides the backdrop to history as it unfolds. History is more than events, it is comprised of the life experience of millions of individuals expressed through writing and speech.
Silence this and we silence humanity.
Freedom of Expression quotes
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall in "The Friends of Voltaire".
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" - Noam Chomsky.
"Here is my advice as we begin the century that will lead to 2081. First, guard the freedom of ideas at all costs. Be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to over-simplify. And don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression." - Gerard K. O'Neill, 2081.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime". Potter Stewart.
"The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion". Henry Steele Commager.
"Without words, without writing and without books there would be no history, there could be no concept of humanity", Herman Hesse
"Silence is the loudest scream", anonymous.
References:
All references accessed 25 March 2012.
1. Republic of South Africa, 'Protection of Information Bill'. http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=118894
2. David Smith, 21 November 2011, 'Black Tuesday' protests to mark likely passing of South African Secrecy Bill' - The Guardian online. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/21/black-tuesday-protests-south-africa-secrecy
3. Charlayne Hunter-Gault, 22 November 2011, 'Black Tuesday in South Africa', The New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/11/black-tuesday-in-south-africa.html
4. Human Rights Watch, 13 July 2011, 'Israel: anti-boycott bill stifles free expression'. http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/13/israel-anti-boycott-bill-stifles-expression
5. Bill of Rights Defense Committee, 'First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Assembly', http://www.bordc.org/threats/speech.php
6. Zack Whittaker, 12 October 2011, 'Newspaper sues government to reveal 'secret' Patriot Act interpretation', ZDNet, http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/newspaper-sues-government-to-reveal-secret-patriot-act-interpretation/60407
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)