Muslims protesting against an American movie on their way to the US consulate in Sydney in 2012. James Brickwood
18C debate highlights the ethnic threat to free speech
by Senator David Leyonhjelm 1 April 2017 Australian Financial ReviewWhen Labor, the Greens and certain Liberals in western Sydney seats seek to explain their reasons for opposing changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, they mostly refer to the concerns of ethnic, religious and racial minority groups.
Representatives of Armenian, Hellenic, Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese groups have joined Jewish, Lebanese Muslim and Arab groups to oppose any changes apart from procedural, arguing that amending section 18C will unleash a torrent of “hate speech”.
While we occasionally hear half-hearted claims that minorities require special protection from hurt feelings, the main driver of opposition is the political clout of these groups. A dozen or so federal seats are held on margins smaller than the populations of these groups. And in the recent WA state election, certain Muslim leaders openly endorsed the Greens.
More like home
The debate over S18C is much greater than free speech. It is in fact a fight for the votes of people who have different values from those of traditional Australia.
Instead of embracing the values of their adopted country, these ethnic, religious and immigrant representatives want Australia to become more like the countries they left behind.
Australia has a deeply rooted tradition of freedom in which free speech is central. Our legal and cultural origins lie in Britain, where the primacy of individuals over collectivism first took root. The same values led the US to make free speech the first amendment in its Bill of Rights.
Australia has been a leading supporter of free speech internationally. It was a founding member of the United Nations under the leadership of former Labor minister Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, who became president of the UN General Assembly and was instrumental in drafting and having adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 19 of the Declaration states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Equality and freedom
Freedom of association, worship and movement, freedom from arbitrary arrest, equality before the law and free speech are generally regarded as the bedrock of a free society. On top of these, Australia has embraced equality and respect, irrespective of gender or personal attributes, and rejected claims of inherited status and class.
These values are not necessarily shared by those who come to Australia. Certain Armenians accuse Turkey of genocide but want to suppress its response; Greeks can have issues with Turks and Macedonians; Indians can be racist when it comes to West Indian cricketers but are sensitive to the same speech themselves; those from Arabic and Lebanese Muslim cultures can hold abhorrent views about women and gays and resolve matters of feelings and honour through violence; and many Jews want to suppress Holocaust denialism.
After World War II, immigrants who arrived in Australia either abandoned their historic grievances or chose not to share them with others. Millions of post-war immigrants from dozens of countries integrated, assimilated, and did their best to become true-blue Aussies. For their part, Australians welcomed these immigrants as “New Australians” and embraced their food, music and dance.
A threat to liberal values
The fact that leaders of immigrant, ethnic and religious groups are now flexing their political muscle in pursuit of different values is a major concern. Not only does it threaten traditional liberal values, it fuels opposition to immigration among the general community and gives credence to demands to block certain types of immigrants.
Australia cannot afford this; its economic growth depends on a substantial flow of skilled immigrants. (Family reunion immigrants are less beneficial). It would cost us dearly if we were to close our borders to the talents and expertise that immigration delivers.
Other countries have addressed this problem by raising the bar on citizenship. Switzerland, for example, has a relatively relaxed attitude to immigrants provided they find a job. However, becoming a Swiss citizen and eligible to vote in elections requires 10 years of residence, no criminal record, a solid employment history and endorsement by the applicant’s Canton (equivalent to state/local government). In practical terms, unless they have embraced “Swiss values”, they do not become citizens.
Opposition to changes to 18C is a wake-up call. Australia’s traditional liberal values are under siege like never before. With one side of politics already in full retreat, it is vital the other side steps up to protect those values before it is too late.
David Leyonhjelm is a Senator for the Liberal Democrats
Original article here
A special unit in this prison houses Australia’s most dangerous extremists. We gain rare access and discover a ticking time-bomb
The Muslim yard at Goulburn SuperMax.
THE WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN MAGAZINE, APRIL 1-2, 2017
STORY: PAUL MALEY | PHOTOGRAPHY: GUY BAILEY
Five times a day, Goulburn’s SuperMax goes quiet. The din of jail life stops as the 30-odd Muslim inmates angle their bottle-green prayer mats towards Mecca. Standing alone in their narrow cells, they raise their arms in supplication and, with eyes closed, recite the holy incantations of the Surah Al-Fatiha, the first verse of the Holy Koran and the beginning of the Muslims’ Divine Communion with God. Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem. Alhamdu lillaahi Rabbil ’aalameen…
A few hundred metres away, in the general prison, dozens more inmates are doing the same thing. Under a soggy grey sky, they kneel in the exercise yard and pray as guards carrying high-powered assault rifles patrol the 5.5m-high walls around them. There’s no trouble today; there rarely is during prayers.
Out in the main prison population, religion is a source of comfort or just another diversion from the drudgery of jail life. Not so in the SuperMax. Here, religion remains an obsession. It is the reason most of the inmates were locked up and, as the years tick over on their time here, it’s what’s kept them going.
Anyone who thinks Australia does not have a problem with prison radicalisation should visit SuperMax during prayer time. They are all here. The names and faces behind a thousand headlines heralding mayhem and death. And with a handful of exceptions, the entire population of the SuperMax observes this daily ritual. They all believe the same thing: “There is no God but Allah and this is where He wants me.” For now.
When Islamic State broke through the Syrian border in June 2014, annexing northern Iraq and declaring a caliphate, Australia’s prisons filled with a new generation of Muslim extremists ensnared by the ISIS ideology of do-it-yourself violence. In Australia, 62 people were charged after 27 separate counter-terrorism operations in little more than two years. A problem that once lurked in mosques, chat rooms and obscure prayer halls was transferred, en masse, into the prison system. That was the good news. The bad news is they are more dangerous than they have ever been, their radical beliefs entrenched in the same system that locked them up in the first place.
And soon, some of them will be up for release. A system that is supposed to remove threats from the community is, in fact, incubating them for future generations.
The first thing you notice about Goulburn’s High Risk Management Correctional Centre, to give the SuperMax its official name, is that it looks nothing like a prison. Built in 2001 in the NSW city 90km north-east of Canberra as a place to house the state’s most violent offenders, it is concealed behind the soaring walls and grim Victorian façade of Goulburn’s historic jail, a fortress within a fortress. The corridors are wide, the lights are bright and cherry-red doors with observation windows provide access to every cell. There is no mess hall, no shower block. No tattooed cons pumping iron in the yard. Common areas don’t exist in SuperMax. On some days it might be possible to walk the entire length of the prison without encountering a single inmate.
Glen Piazza, SuperMax’s manager of security, is our guide for this rare glimpse into Australia’s most secretive prison. Piazza is an affable 50-something who’s been working in Corrections for nearly 30 years, five in the pressure-cooker of SuperMax. He’s got a broad Australian accent and a black sense of humour. “Remember, if you get raped, it’s just jail sex,” he says, as we’re about to enter the prison. You get the feeling it’s not the first time he’s used this line.
Glenn Piazza speaks with a prison inmate.
SuperMax is divided into three units, Piazza explains. Unit Nine is where unsentenced prisoners are kept. Unit Eight holds convicted prisoners serving out long sentences up to 20 years or more. Unit Seven houses prisoners for the first 14 days of their sentence while they are being assessed. Nobody is sentenced to SuperMax. Everybody here has been sent because they were too hard to manage in other prisons or because of their link to terrorism. Thirty of the prison’s 48 inmates are here for terrorist-related offences.
We head first to Unit Nine, a horseshoe-shaped row of cells with an enclosed observation area in the middle where the prison officers huddle like soldiers in a pillbox. This is effectively a remand centre for NSW’s most dangerous men. We have been here just a few minutes and already the shouting from the banks of locked cells has begun. “Why don’t you tell them about the oppression inside SuperMax!”
In some countries, radical inmates are dispersed across the prison system, an approach that is supposed to make deradicalisation easier. But here in NSW they are grouped together, quarantined from other prisoners like patients stricken with a deadly virus. The idea is they can’t radicalise other prisoners and in practice it works well enough. They radicalise each other instead. The names of prisoners are written on cards outside their cells along with the details of their sentence. Virtually all are of Middle Eastern background.
One of the conditions of our visit is that we do not name inmates, but they are recognisable enough. Australia’s most notorious serial killer is here. The fearsome muscles and piercing black eyes that terrified his seven known victims in their last moments are gone. More than 20 years into his sentence, he’s an old man now. He is sitting at a concrete desk writing letters, something he does incessantly. He mops the floors for extra milk rations. In any other jail he’d be just another sad old crim seeing out the years, but here in the SuperMax he looks oddly out of place. It says much about the transformation of SuperMax from high-risk prison to holding pen for Muslim radicals that not even the serial killers fit in. Piazza says this prisoner would normally be up on Deck Eight, but they brought him down here because he’s been doing it tough. Some break.
In the cell next to him is a rangy Lebanese boy with a mohawk haircut and a chest full of tatts. I recognise him, too. In April last year he was moved from Kempsey Prison to the SuperMax after he bashed his cellmate, doused him in boiling water and carved “E4E” (eye for an eye) into his forehead. His victim was a former Australian army reservist and it’s believed this was an ISIS-inspired attack. Certainly it was enough to get him transferred to SuperMax, where he has since been charged with plotting a terror attack on Bankstown Police Station. He also allegedly threatened to cut off the head of Peter Severin, the NSW Corrective Services Commissioner. He sweeps the floor and glowers at us malevolently.
A few cells down is a young man at the centre of Australia’s biggest terrorism plot. He was arrested in September 2014 over an alleged conspiracy to abduct and behead a random member of the public. “Why don’t you report the truth and that’s the oppression of your so-called government,” he yells through the glass. There is a lot of this. In the minds of most inmates there is no difference between a targeted military campaign and cutting a bloke’s head off in Sydney’s Martin Place. If anything, they think the former is worse.
Visits like this are rare in SuperMax and already the prisoners are getting toey. Young men with bushy Salafist beards press their faces against the heavy safety glass in their cell doors. Before long the shouting starts. “Power to Islam!” “The truth shall set you free!” and “Allahu Akbar!” Piazza can feel the tension rising; you’d have to be made of granite not to. He doesn’t want the inmates too riled up – it creates problems for staff later in the day. We move on.
Deck Eight is quieter. The prisoners here are older and less excited by our visit. SuperMax rules allow prisoners to consort with no more than one inmate at a time so some are in pairs wandering in and out of each other’s cells. I peer through one cell door and see a man in his 40s sitting alone on his bed reading from a sheaf of papers. He tugs at his beard and makes notes with a pen. On the outside he ran a recruitment network for al-Qa’ida, funnelling dozens of young radicals into the maw of the Syrian jihad. To the cops he was an A-grade coward, content to send countless young Australians to their deaths but lacking the bottle to jump on a plane himself. I’m told he wept uncontrollably when he arrived in SuperMax. He sees us and raises a single hand in greeting.
Prisoners spend at least 16 hours a day in their cells. They eat in them, shower in them, defecate in them. They can have a radio, TV and kettle. No internet. Depending on their behaviour they might be allowed into the exercise yard where they can play handball, basketball or work out on the chin-up bars. If they’re really good they get access to the running track at the centre of the complex. The track’s small but hard to miss. It’s slathered in netting to stop contraband being hurled in – or a helicopter landing.
Security is an obsession inside SuperMax. When prisoners first arrive they are stripped naked and placed in an observation cell. Their entire body is x-rayed using a so-called “boss chair”, a throne-like device that fires x-rays at the head, feet, torso and rectum, the cavity of choice for those wishing to smuggle contraband past the officers. Piazza says that over the years staff have retrieved knives, drugs and phones, which are a valuable commodity in prison. “The best one I’ve seen is a phone and a charger,” he says. “That was in 2006. Imagine how big the phone was.”
Prisoners sit in the boss chair after every visit or court appearance. They move cells every 28 days and when they move through the prison they are accompanied by a minimum of two guards. When their relatives or solicitors visit they must sit, Hannibal Lecter-style, in sealed Perspex boxes, so-called “safe interview spaces”. Their mail is read, scanned and stored. Their conversations with visitors are live-monitored. Conversations in languages other than English are banned.
This is how SuperMax works. Not with muscle or threats but with a rigid adherence to rules and discipline. Strip a life down to its rudiments, take away a man’s contact with the outside world, his possessions, his freedom, force him to seek permission if he wants to hold his wife’s hand during a visit – narrow his life to the point where the most exciting thing that can happen in six months is a visit from a journalist – and you don’t need phone books or rubber hoses to keep order. All you need is extra milk rations.
A SuperMax cell.
It wasn’t supposed to be quite like this. When the Carr government opened SuperMax back in 2001, the plan was for a maximum security prison that would be used to house the state’s most difficult offenders. Escapees, psychopaths, crime bosses – this was SuperMax’s core business. Then came 9/11 and, more than a decade later, the age of ISIS. A prison that had been built to handle the system’s toughest crooks became a holding pen for Muslim terrorists, the most radical square mile in all of Australia. “We’ve got a completely different set of inmates than in the main jail,” says Scott Ryan, SuperMax’s head of intelligence. “There’s very little violence. They’re a lot smarter.”
Working in SuperMax is uniquely stressful for staff. The inmates hate them, calling them kuffars or dogs. Some won’t even talk to the female staff. As we are leaving, one of the officers tells us: “I don’t want my picture. I’ve got a family.”
But as dangerous as these men are, there is a growing view that many do not belong in the SuperMax. Increasingly, experts are questioning the wisdom of housing young offenders in the same facility as older, die-hard extremists. Australian National University deradicalisation expert Dr Clarke Jones says SuperMax is the right place for violent, difficult prisoners but the wrong place for younger inmates who might, under the right circumstances, be separated from their radical ideologies. In Victoria, he adds, radical inmates are spread throughout the system.“
There’s a long history of psychological evidence that it becomes more difficult to rehabilitate prisoners over the age of 25,” Jones says. “But under 25, there’s a good chance.” Vocational training, religious counselling and physical contact with their family – these are the elements that need to be in place if younger inmates are to be diverted from radicalism. “Virtually none of that is available in SuperMax.”
And SuperMax’s population is getting younger, much younger. Across the fence in Goulburn jail proper, the prison population is divided by race or religion. There is a Muslim yard, an Islander yard, an Aboriginal yard and an Asian yard. Multiculturalism might work in the real world but in Goulburn it is segregation that keeps the peace.
In SuperMax, the division is even simpler: al-Qa’ida and Islamic State. The older, sentenced prisoners support al-Qa’ida. The younger ones, energised by the Syrian jihad, support Islamic State. Two tribes. They don’t get along.
“They really have nothing to do with each other,” Ryan tells me. “They’ll be polite to each other. The older fellas will look at [them] as young punks – ‘they know nothing about the Koran, they know nothing about our struggles’ and all of this. The younger ones will look at the older ones, ‘Oh, these old has-beens. This is the new way. All that stuff’s out now.’ There’s a big division in that.” Al-Qa’ida supporters are held in Unit Eight, where the average age of prisoners is 35. Islamic State supporters are in Unit Nine, where the average age is just 21.
The al-Qa’ida terrorists sentenced after 9/11 are starting to come up for parole. A few are already out. Khaled Sharrouf did a brief spell in SuperMax after he was convicted over his involvement in the 2005 terror plot to bomb targets in Sydney and Melbourne. It didn’t do much good. In 2013 Sharrouf fled for Syria, where he was last seen brandishing severed heads and executing Iraqi officials in the sands outside Mosul.
In August this year, Bilal Khazal, a 46-year-old former baggage handler convicted of making a terrorist training manual, will chance his arm before the parole board. There is a reasonable prospect he will get out. In early 2019, Ahmad Naizmand, a 22-year-old convicted of breaching a terrorism control order, will do the same. The others will start dribbling out in the years after that. I ask Ryan how many remain hard-core radicals. He thinks for a moment. “You could probably put on the one hand the ones that aren’t.”
Inmates behind bars.
New federal government laws that would allow authorities to detain unrepentant extremists beyond the term of their sentence would, in theory, apply to many of SuperMax’s inhabitants. NSW Corrective Services Commissioner Severin says that, as it stands, virtually all of SuperMax’s sentenced terrorists would be candidates for the new sanction. But the legislation is untested. Besides, there are 30 Muslim extremists in SuperMax. Locking them all up indefinitely is not a realistic option, not if you want to avoid turning SuperMax into Guantanamo Bay. At some point they’re going to rejoin the community.
Corrective Services NSW offers a voluntary deradicalisation program, the Proactive Integrated Support Model or PRISM, but it is aimed at those at risk of radicalisation, not those already in its grip. Of the 13,000 prisoners in NSW jails, about 20 are signed up to the program. It is hard to know how effective PRISM is, but if it is like any other deradicalisation program the answer is, probably, not very.
The rise of Islamic State has spawned a multi-billion-dollar industry in so-called “countering violent extremism” programs. None claims a convincing success rate; most are abject failures. None of this is news to Piazza. “Nobody in the world knows what to do with these guys,” he says.
For the older terrorists, the point is moot. They’re too far gone. A few won’t talk to the staff anymore, let alone participate in deradicalisation programs. In the years he’s spent walking the corridors of SuperMax, Piazza has seen little evidence the men in his charge are ready to change. “When someone gets to that age of 40, they go, ‘F..k, you know what? I’ve had enough of this shit.’ Well, now we’re getting guys who are 50-51 years of age and they’re still going.” I ask Ryan what would happen if the older ones were thrown in with the general prison population. “They’d recruit. Simple as that.”
But for the younger ones, the picture is different. Ryan estimates that if all the unsentenced prisoners in SuperMax were released tomorrow, around half would never touch a Koran again: “They’re not that committed to the cause.” He thinks some of the younger prisoners might shed their extremist ideology if they could be separated from the older, harder ideologues early into their sentence. He describes what it’s like when prisoners first arrive in SuperMax. “They’ll be down in Unit Seven all by themselves and you can talk to them there,” he says. “After that initial shock, they’re polite. Then you get them up to the other deck with other influences and that’s when you lose them.”
Severin acknowledges the challenges of trying to rehabilitate hardened jihadis inside the SuperMax but to him the priority is clear. “For me, the responsibility to the rest of the system and the broader community, and national security for that matter, outweighs the negative effects that the concentration of those individuals might have.”
He has hinted this will change in the future. Last year Severin said Corrective Services NSW was examining a “differentiated” placement system, one that could see radical inmates separated. A report by NSW Inspector of Custodial Services Fiona Rafter, who was tasked last year with examining prison radicalisation, is likely to make similar recommendations. Corrective Services is also looking at a system that will allow radical inmates to be moved downward through the system prior to release.
Severin says that outside the SuperMax there is no widespread problem of radicalisation across the prison system, and by all accounts he is right. Of the 13,000 inmates confined in NSW, there have been just four confirmed cases where inmates have been radicalised, he says. That’s almost certainly an underestimate, but it’s hard to make the case that the prison system is teeming with murderous jihadis. When we visit the Muslim yard in Goulburn jail proper, the inmates make a show of praying but seem far more interested in horsing around for the cameras. This isn’t to make light of their beliefs or be naive about their crimes, but it seems anything but a hotbed of radical preaching. In two days wandering the yards of Goulburn they are the friendliest bunch of blokes we meet.
But as SuperMax starts disgorging its inmates, the risk to the community will be profound. None of this is the fault of Piazza and his staff. They are not social workers. They are prison officers whose job is to protect the community, something they do exceptionally well and under the most trying conditions. But thinking of the rangy Lebanese boy with the chest full of tatts prowling his cell like a caged animal, it is difficult not to believe we are kicking the can down the road. What happens when we get to the end?
Original article here
The real solution….see here
Pauline Hanson insists addicts must cover the costs of their treatment
The West Australian 4 March 2017 PAUL MURRAY
Based on a recent opinion poll, more than half the West Australians who will vote for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation next weekend are driven by a dislike of both Islam and the major political parties.
So while those who will actually form government continue to spend like drunken sailors buying votes, One Nation gets the bulk of its support at no cost to the taxpayer.
As is usual with protest movements, Pauline Hanson’s is best known for what it opposes rather than for things it supports.
But many voters might be surprised that the fledgling WA arm of PHON has released a range of policies in recent weeks that have escaped widespread media scrutiny.
That’s despite the possibility Hanson could hold the balance of power in the Legislative Council in a week’s time and have an arm lock on the next government.
So even if PHON voters are not interested in policy detail — preferring Hanson’s broadbrush nationalism on things such as foreign ownership and immigration — everyone else should be concerned about the party’s platform.
That’s because the next Parliament might just be dancing on it to Pauline’s tune.
For example, PHON wants methamphetamine-addicted criminals to pay for their own compulsory — and indefinite — treatment. The cash will be taken by force if necessary.
“One Nation WA proposes a ‘two strikes and you’re out’ policy to help tackle the methamphetamine scourge in our community,” the policing and community safety policy says. “If a meth user is caught two times, they will be sent to a rehabilitation facility and kept there until their addiction is under control.
“Addicts must cover the costs of their treatment, either by having assets seized, or if on welfare, payments will be forfeited to the state. No debt will be wiped or worn by the taxpayer, even if the user is on welfare payments after release.
“Monies will be taken from their account until paid in full. If users hold a job, it will be taken from their wages on the same basis as maintenance payments.”
Juvenile criminals, too, are in for a shock, with a promise to introduce controversial “broken windows” laws in WA. They crack down on minor crimes to create an atmosphere of law and order but are criticised for being inherently unjust and not addressing the causes of disorder, which are often racial.
“A philosophy of coming down hard on minor offences with juveniles in particular in order to deter future offending,” is how the PHON policy describes the approach.
The party also promises to examine new laws making parents accountable for the criminal behaviour of their children. It also supports a “Fagin’s Law” approach which targets those procuring young people to commit offences.
PHON also wants to build more prisons, for punishment rather than rehabilitation, and to make life inside tougher.
“Prisons are no longer a deterrent to crime,” the party says. “Society as a whole needs to consider what role prisons play in punishment and rehabilitation.
“Prisons should not be the home prisoners never had. We believe sufficiently punitive measures should exist for lawbreakers.”
Tough-on-crime promises are standard at election time, but the One Nation policies released so far miss several hot-button issues such as debt reduction and WA’s GST share and strangely ignore health, the biggest spending part of the Budget. There’s nothing yet on electricity prices, other than keeping Western Power in State hands — which doesn’t stop costs rising and won’t cut debt — but it wants to drive down gas prices by reserving more for domestic use.
On affordable housing, PHON says the key is to cut immigration levels and deter foreign buyers with a 20 per cent penalty tax. Labor wants a 4 per cent surcharge which it says would raise $21 million.
PHON wants no “racial/ethnic preferences” in public housing allocations and promises a minimum of 15 per cent of all government land and home developments would be targeted at low-to-moderate income households.
The party also blames immigration for Perth’s congested roads and services.
So to “ease congestion, lift productivity, generate economic growth and jobs and keep our assets in Australian hands”, it is proposing to start its own bank.
“A WA Infrastructure Finance Corporation would be financed with seed funding and direct public funding and operate on a commercial basis,” the party says, clearly forgetting Brian Burke’s similar experiment with the WA Development Corporation.
“It would help finance infrastructure projects in our State, at concessional interest rates, thus spreading the costs across the generations who would benefit from these projects.
“This method would allow WA to finance and construct major projects while earning a return for the taxpayer. It would allow the government to cut its Budget expenditure, freeing up funds either to pay down debt or to invest in education, health, families, policing and other areas.”
Most of these policies are highly contentious — and in some cases deeply flawed — deserving scrutiny against the likelihood that One Nation will have enough influence in the coming Parliament to exert substantial pressure on whoever forms government.
Original article here
ONE NATION POLICIES – THE ICE EPIDEMIC
One Nation believes that communities and governments must take a strong stance if we are ever to maintain control or stop this epidemic.
Solutions for Ice Addicts
- One Nation proposes a three strikes and you’re out . If an ice user is caught three times, they will be sent to a rehabilitation facility and kept there until their addiction is under control.
- Addicts must cover the costs of their treatment, either by having assets seized, or if on welfare, payments will be forfeited to the state. No debt will be wiped or worn by the taxpayer, even if the user is on welfare payments after release. Monies will be taken from their account until paid in full. If users hold a job, it will be taken from their wages on the same basis as maintenance payments.
Solutions for Dealers
- Extremely harsh penalties should apply to anyone selling ice.
- Each gram of ice sold, should equate to a mandatory year in prison.
- Their assets will be sold to offset the costs and will be recoverable, even after time spent in prison.
- If foreign nationals are convicted of drug crimes, a treaty will be sought for jail time to be done in their own country. Too many foreign nationals commit crimes within Australia because the rewards are far greater, and prison sentences are no deterrent.
Read more here
A TOUGH APPROACH TO THE ICE EPIDEMIC
Tuesday, March 01, 2016 PAULINE HANSON
It’s widely known as ICE, yet it’s also referred to as Crystal Meth or Methamphetamine. No matter how it’s referred to, the drug is with certainty, followed by misery.
Statistics now show there are 270,000 regular ‘ice’ users in Australia and the numbers are growing rapidly. Wherever I go throughout the country, the main issue raised by people is ice. Nurses and doctors are having to deal with ice users in our already overrun and understaffed hospitals, while other patients are forced to wait. A nurse informed me she was aware of a man losing his life due to a heart attack while waiting for doctors attending an ice user. This is simply unacceptable!
Our police and ambulance officers face regular abuse or attacks from overdosed ice users. Some of you might say this is a State Government issue, however this drug in particular is having national consequences and it’s about time the Federal Government encouraged the states to take a unified approach in combatting ice.
Two young mothers at Tweed Heads (NSW) told me the drug is out of control and ice can be purchased in a matter of 5 minutes in their community. They are in genuine fear for their children and themselves. It appears no place in Australia is free from ice and the devastation that comes with its use. Small country towns in the outback are also under attack. These once peaceful communities are being destroyed by crime, abuse and fear associated with ice. The Vulnerable and youth are being targeted, leaving parents and loved ones not knowing what to do, or where to go.
I have no sympathy for drug users. I do however for their families, friends and communities who deal with the destruction they cause. The ice users are ‘bloody idiots’ to say the least. Everyone has a choice in life. Being depressed, out of a job or feeling sorry for yourself is no reason to take ice. There are many people who can claim these ailments that turn to drugs. People have to start taking responsibility for their actions.
I am fed up with the innocent and taxpayers having to pick up the pieces for thugs and idiots, or irresponsible and selfish non-contributors in our society. I cannot understand the reasons why someone who is a hardworking, family person, wants to take ice?
Communities and governments must take a strong stance if we are ever to maintain control or stop this epidemic. I propose three strikes and you’re out. If an ice user is caught three times, they will be sent to a rehabilitation facility and kept there until their addiction is under control. They must cover the costs, either by having assets seized, or if on welfare, payments will be forfeited to the state. No debt will be wiped or worn by the taxpayer, even if the user is on welfare payments after release. Monies will be taken from their account until paid in full. If users hold a job, it will be taken from their wages on the same basis as maintenance payments.
Extremely harsh penalties should apply to anyone selling ice. Each gram of ice sold, should equate to a mandatory year in prison. Their assets will be sold to offset the costs and will be recoverable, even after time spent in prison.
If foreign nationals are convicted of drug crimes, a treaty will be sought for jail time to be done in their own country. Too many foreign nationals commit crimes within Australia because the rewards are far greater, and prison sentences are no deterrent.
I am not interested in do-gooders supporting the ‘rights’ of these criminals. When greed and disregard overshadows the impact on human life and society as a whole, they should forfeit all freedoms.
By Pauline Hanson
SHALOM HOUSE – THE STRICTEST DRUG REHAB IN AUSTRALIA
If you have a male family member who would like to change their life, contact Shalom House in Perth
Facebook Site: https://www.facebook.com/WASGinc
Judges receive pay rises amid claims ice addicts adding to their workload as cases ‘increased in complexity’
Natasha Bita, National Affairs Editor, The Daily Telegraph
November 29, 2016 9:00pm
JUDGES will pocket up to $500 a week extra in plump pay rises next year after blaming ice addicts for worsening workloads and job stress.
Federal Circuit Court judges have demanded a bonus two weeks’ holiday and a doubling of superannuation contributions and service leave.
The Remuneration Tribunal yesterday gave federal judges a 4.8 per cent bonus from January 1, swelling the salary of Australia’s first female High Court chief justice, Susan Kiefel, to $573,046 next year.
Other High Court judges will pocket an extra $23,818 — bumping their pay to $520,028.
Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant told the tribunal cases had “increased in complexity”. Picture: Hollie Adams
Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant told the tribunal cases had “increased in complexity’’ due to an increase in drug use — especially methamphetamine — as well as mental illness and allegations of sexual abuse and family violence.
She said some litigants posed a “real/significant threat’’ to judges.
And she warned the “extraordinary number of cases’’ involving family violence “has put the courts under considerable pressure’’.
“The parenting cases … require difficult fact-finding about contested issues including sexual abuse of children, family violence … mental health issues and substance abuse,’’ Chief Justice Bryant states in her submission, kept secret for a year and made public yesterday after a Freedom of Information request by The Daily Telegraph.
The Chief Judge of the FCC, John Pascoe, told the tribunal that Federal Circuit Court judges receive only four weeks’ holiday a year, compared to eight weeks for Family Court judges and 10 weeks for Federal Court or NSW District court judges.
He called for at least six weeks holidays — as well as six months long service leave after five years in the job.
“Annual leave of four weeks a year is inadequate given the demands of trial judge work,’’ his submission states.
“Failure to deal with these issues to date has had a deleterious effect on the health and wellbeing of judges of the court.’’
Cartoonist Warren’s perspective.
Chief Judge Pascoe said the Federal Circuit Court — which hears family law cases, refugee and migration claims, consumer lawsuits and counter-terrorism issues — was the “primary face of federal justice’’ and its judges should be paid 90 per cent of a Federal Court judge’s salary.
“The average Australian experiencing difficulties in family life, at work, or in their business will appear before this court,’’ he said.
Chief Justice Pascoe said Federal Circuit Court judges’ superannuation contributions should double from 15.4 per cent to 30 per cent of salary, because they were missing out on the usual judicial pension of 60 per cent of their salary after 10 years’ service.
But the tribunal rejected the claim, handing Federal Circuit Court judges a $17,046 pay rise instead of the $23,599 they asked for, and ignoring the holiday and superannuation demands. The Remuneration Tribunal ruled that a 4.8 per cent pay rise “recognises the increased complexities faced by judges … in an environment of continued economic and wages restraint’’.
Federal Circuit Court Chief Judge John Pascoe said superannuation contributions should double from 15.4 per cent to 30 per cent of salary. Picture: Renee Nowytarger
The judges’ pay rise is double the 2.4 per cent awarded to Australia’s poorest workers this year, and comes on top of a 2 per cent pay rise for federal judges in 2016. The federal Attorney- General’s Department fought the proposed increase, noting that Federal Circuit Court judges’ salaries had doubled between 2002 to $355,130 this year, while the average wage had risen 71 per cent to $80,415.
“Given the large number of judicial officers and the generous level of remuneration they receive, any percentage increase in judicial remuneration will affect the government’s budget position,’’ it told the tribunal.
The NSW government complained that any federal pay rises will trigger “me too’’ pay claims from judges in this state. NSW Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Tribunal head Richard Grellman warned if NSW failed to match federal pay packets, it “may have an adverse impact on the ability of … NSW … to attract and retain the best available people to the NSW courts’’.
NSW judges are paid more than judges interstate, with the Chief Justice of the NSW Supreme Court earning $482,470 this year.
Originally published as ‘Meth stress’ behind judges’ salary increase
Original article here
Brian Fitzpatrick said the trade union royal commission last year had failed to end corruption in the CFMEU union’s NSW division. “They are still taking money,” he said. “They don’t want to do anything about it.”
Aaron Patrick 20 Oct 2016 Australian Financial Review
A new construction industry regulator – one of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s top priorities – would end the corrupt union’s stranglehold over labour and reshape the entire industry, a union veteran says.
Brian Fitzpatrick, an organiser in the Construction, Mining, Forestry and Energy Union for 25 years, said the union was able to drive up wages because most workers were more loyal to it than their employers.
“It will shift the whole balance of power in the industry,” Mr Fitzpatrick said in an interview on Wednesday. “It will completely nullify the power of the union.”
He also said the trade union royal commission last year had failed to end corruption in the union’s NSW division. “They are still taking money,” he said. “They don’t want to do anything about it.”
The Australian Building and Construction Commission, which the Senate will consider approving next month, is shaping up as one of the bigger political battles of the year. It is unclear if the government has enough Senate votes to re-establish the commission. A failure would be a big political embarrassment.
Opponents, including ACTU secretary Ged Kearney and Greens leader Richard Di Natale, portray the commission as an attack on workers’ rights. But insiders like Mr Fitzpatrick see the agency as being used to shift industrial power away from the union, which critics say pushes up the cost of construction through aggressive bargaining and ignoring court rulings.
“Whoever gets the rule of law on their side will entirely be in control,” said Mr Fitzpatrick, who opposes the commission because he believes it will reduce union power.
A study by the Productivity Commission two years ago found wages in the construction industry had risen faster than other industries since 1998. Infrastructure Australia, a government agency, commissioned research that found Australian projects were 40 per cent more expensive than in the US and required 30 to 35 per cent more labour.
Mr Fitzpatrick, 73, coordinated organisers for the union’s construction division until 2013 when he fell out with its leaders in NSW after complaining of being threatened by another union official.
The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, which was headed by former High Court judge Dyson Heydon, found the CFMEU didn’t properly investigate his complaint and that he was victimised after making it.
Mr Fitzpatrick, who is still a member of the union, said other members were disappointed it hadn’t been cleaned up since the royal commission last year recommended charges against several current and former CFMEU officials.
“The feeling among the workers is very disappointed because nothing has happened,” he said. “In NSW it’s definitely corrupt.”
The union declined to comment.
When he became an organiser at the union in the 1980s, Mr Fitzpatrick said it had it had tough probity rules that were rigorously enforced. That’s ended now, he said.
“We were a very militant union but we were clean,” he said. “You take a pair of shoelaces, you are out. If someone gives you a bottle of wine you give it to the girls for a raffle. That slipped away.”
Legal experts say the new agency, which was abolished by the Rudd Labor government, is designed to curtail industrial tactics used by the CFMEU rather than fight corruption within the union.
RMIT University professor Anthony Forsyth said the commission would likely only “moderate” the union’s behaviour.
“It has to be remembered that this union tends to run the gauntlet of whatever laws are in place, including the limits on industrial action,” he said.
The proposed law would give the agency authority over of transport of goods to building sites and oil platforms; create new rules against illegal picket lines; increase penalties for unlawful industrial action from $10,800 to $34,000 for individuals, and from $54,000 to $170,000 for unions; allow the agency to take legal action even if the union and construction company have settled a dispute; and increase federal control over the industrial practices of companies tendering for federally funded projects.
Some experts, including Professor Forsyth, believe one of the biggest effects of the law would be a building code that would substantially limit the CFMEU’s ability to get clauses in workplace agreements that reduce workplace flexibility.
Original article here
Bill Leak Cartoon
Rebecca Urban 17 Oct 2016 The Australian
Victorian preschoolers will be exposed to a controversial program that associates masculinity with dominance, control and violence against women when it is rolled out next year.
The state’s Education Department is inviting early childhood educators to enrol in respectful relationships training, which will enable them to implement its teachings in preschools and kindergartens.
The Victorian government’s $21.8 million Respectful Relationships education program, which is part of its broader campaign to stamp out family violence, has copped criticism in recent days for failing to consider the multiple and complex drivers of family violence and for overlooking the experience of male victims.
As The Australian reported last week, by the time students are in Year 7 they are introduced to the concept of “male privilege” and taught that the dominant form of masculinity is associated with higher rates of violence against women.
While the curriculum relies heavily on the term “gender-based violence”, the overriding emphasis is on men being the perpetrators of violent acts, sparking accusations that it is biased, could alienate men and prove to be counter-productive.
However, the government has committed to providing professional learning around respectful relationships and family violence prevention for up to 4000 early childhood professionals. “Building the foundations for respectful relationships starts in early childhood and can have a big impact on preventing family violence for our future generations,” says a memo posted to the Education Department website this month.
The memo says the government will spend $3.4m delivering professional development and support to every early childhood educator working in a funded kindergarten program.
While curriculum guidance for the preschool level has not yet been published, guidance for the foundation years (Prep-Year 2) stresses “research shows that children become aware of gender norms and make efforts to fit within gendered expectations by the time they are in kindergarten”. “Beliefs about gender norms and roles are socially constructed. That is, the types of behaviours considered acceptable, appropriate or desirable for girls and boys are created by societies. Gender norms inform beliefs about how girls and boys should act, speak, dress and express themselves.
“Children benefit from critical thinking exercises within which they are assisted to detect and challenge the limiting nature of many traditional gender norms.”
The program’s reliance on contested gender theory, coming out of the study of queer theory, makes it not dissimilar to the controversial Safe Schools program, an “anti-bullying” program that has attracted criticism for promoting sexual and gender diversity.
Opposition education spokesman Nick Wakeling called on the government yesterday to rethink the program, which will be mandatory from next year. He said the Respectful Relationships curriculum had shifted dramatically from its original purpose. “Early childhood educators should be focusing on … educating our youngest children, not indoctrinating them,” he said.
Education Minister James Merlino defended the program last week, saying the government would not stand by while one woman a week in Australia was killed through domestic violence.
Original article here
Program wastes millions on making little boys feel ashamed
“All the evidence shows that education is the key to ending the vicious cycle of family violence,” claimed the Victorian Minister for Education James Merlino while launching a new $22.8 million Respectful Relationships curriculum aimed at combating family violence.
The curriculum focuses solely on men as the perpetrators of domestic violence, teaching students that only by challenging male privilege will violence diminish.
No, Minister. That is simply not true.
Over forty years of international research shows school education programmes are not the answer to the problem of family violence, let alone teaching little school boys about white male privilege. What the evidence actually shows is that family violence is not a gender issue.
To tackle family violence we need to tell the truth about the violence most children are experiencing in Australian homes which is two-way violence involving both mothers and fathers, violence linked to drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness and poverty.
Peter Miller, professor of Violence Prevention and Addiction Studies at Deakin University has recently reviewed well-designed longitudinal studies which show that key variables in perpetuating violent families include children growing up in homes where they are abused or neglected, or poorly supervised and experience high levels of family conflict.
Ending the vicious cycle of children who mimic parental violence requires targeting these at risk families and teaching violent couples new conflict management skills, as overseas research is showing.
Yet there’s no money for such research in Australia. Here governments and bureaucrats have been totally captured by gender warriors using this important social issue to promote feminist ideology.
Last year Thea Brown, social work professor at Monash University, told Victoria’s royal commission into family violence about the harassment she received when she tried to do research into behaviour change programs for violent men. “It’s an anti-research ideology because research is feared in case it threatens the ideological basis of the program,” Brown told the commission.
The royal commission ignored the evidence of Brown, Peter Miller and other experts who spoke out about the need for domestic violence strategies based on proper evidence-based research.
This nonsensical Respectful Relationships curriculum is in direct response to one of the commission’s recommendations.
“Gender inequity is a part of the picture in many cases, but it is not the only thing. Denying that violence is complex and men and children are victims as well runs against all of the reliable evidence and is simply irresponsible. There’s nothing ‘respectful’ in denying people’s suffering.
Everyone is responsible for reducing violence, and targeting one group of perpetrators over another makes no sense in an intervention called ‘respectful relationships’,” says Miller.
University of Queensland psychology professor Kim Halford, who has conducted research on couple violence, confirms there is no evidence that just focusing upon attitudes can change levels of violence, adding that “programs that only focus upon alleged male power and misogyny as the sources of violence grossly oversimplify a complex problem.”
Parents aren’t mugs. Many are already complaining about the offensive anti-male diatribes in similar programmes being run by White Ribbon in schools all over Australia. “They told us we would be reciting an oath against domestic violence and I assumed we would be involved. But when it came time to do it only the boys were told to stand and recite the oath while the girls remained seated.
Me and my friends just felt embarrassed for them,” the 16-year- old daughter of a friend told her parents.
Let’s hope parents are prepared to take on schools which subject their sons to this vile feminist posturing and put the Victorian government on notice for wasting millions on teaching little boys to be ashamed of themselves instead of addressing the real issues underlying domestic violence.
Original article here
The Shalom Works team assists addicts to change and return to living a normal life
by John R. Barich
News Weekly, October 8, 2016
The West Australian Government has released a comprehensive policy aimed at combatting ice. The policy includes rehabilitation, prevention – focused on education in schools – and interdiction by the police. Drug legalisation and smoking rooms, similar in concept to injecting rooms, have been ruled out.
With encouragement from the Family Council of WA, the Council for the National Interest (CNIWA) hosted a Drugs Forum in Perth on August 14, 2016, featuring three speakers covering different aspects of the epidemic of illicit drugs that is sweeping Australia.
In preparing for this forum, the CNIWA investigated the evidence of the past 40 years and found that the policy of harm minimisation, instead of harm prevention, was the root cause of the increase in demand for illicit drugs.
Drug Free Australia chief executive Jo Baxter prepared an extensive presentation as to why Australia has achieved the status of ice capital of the world and how we can get fix this. Jo provided stark comparisons between Australia’s illicit-drug industry growth and Sweden’s reduction in drug use brought about by implementing a policy of reducing demand.
Statistics from the latest United Nations World Drug Report (2015) bear out the assertion that Australia’s per capita rate of drug use for 15–64 year olds is the world’s highest. Sweden, with 40 per cent of Australia’s population, has 29,500 problematic drug users. Australia has 220,000 dependent cannabis users and over 200,000 ice users.
The mantra of drug legalisers that prohibition does not work is clearly given the lie by the Swedish figures. Australia’s focus on minimising harm by giving priority to treatment instead of prevention and early intervention has resulted in the ice problem reaching pandemic proportions.
West African and Chinese organised crime gangs view Australia as a soft touch, with a lack of political will and leadership creating a demand for a highly profitable illicit drug business. Australians are paying world record prices for illicit drugs so it is no wonder organised crime syndicates are flooding the market. Ice is extremely addictive even when knowing the effects are extremely harmful.
Ice smoking leads to brain damage, increased risk to safety in workplaces, increased danger on roads, increased violence in communities, families and relationships. (Hospital emergency departments are on the front line of this drug scourge.)
To repair the damage of 40 years of harmful promoting of illicit drug use Australia should adopt the Swedish compassionate policing model, with court-enforced rehabilitation as against enforced prison, and with an emphasis on rehabilitation of all problem drug users. Sweden went from having the highest rate of drug use in Europe in 1970 to the lowest by 2000.
Australia can emulate Sweden with a restrictive drug policy while maintaining criminal use of drugs to emphasise the harm of illicit drugs, especially methamphetamines.
The WA Government Methamphetamine Strategy is a good start to combatting the scourge of illicit drugs. However, the emphasis still seems to be focused on rehabilitation rather than primary prevention if funding is any indicator. The Australian anti-smoking campaign is evidence of a successful social modification program that can apply to a concerted effort for combating illicit drug use.
Peter Lyndon-James of Shalom House
A complete contrast to the clinical analysis by Jo Baxter was the presentation by Peter Lyndon-James, founder and director of Shalom House Rehabilitation Centre in Perth. In a very forthright manner Peter described the conditions of addicts and his Christian ethics-based, cold turkey treatment of addicts who voluntarily enter his rehabilitation process.
Demand for his service is overwhelming, encouraging a growth in facilities to accommodate the number of damaged men seeking freedom from illicit drug use. Peter emphasised the importance of the addict asking for help, until which time the addict will not commit to the rehabilitation program that may take 12 months or more to achieve success.
Peter and his Shalom House practice a formula that is tough, but it works.
Associate Professor Dr Stuart Reece presented an extensive review of research assembled in association with Professor Gary Hulse of UWA.
Professor Reece’s expose of marijuana and the negative genetic influences needs a full forum of its own to do justice to the material presented. The experience of the generation of the 1960 and ’70s experimentation with drugs that “did me no harm” distorts the reality of the cannabis market of today, with product 80 per cent stronger in cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the two main active ingredients in cannabis.
When combined with a vigorous illicit drug industry peddling brain-destroying methamphetamines, the wrong messages are being conveyed to today’s youth. Professor Reece offered damning research evidence that pregnant women and sexually active males should not be using marijuana. Otherwise, Australia’s next generation will suffer the deadly consequences of genetic defects from the use of cannabinoids.
Professor Reece’s message for Australians, and for the next three to four generations hence, is to ignore the evidence at your peril.
Original article here
Gradually, the masses are realising something is wrong
Maurice Newman 27 September 2016 The Australian
When your news and views come from a tightly controlled, left-wing media echo chamber, it may come as a bit of a shock to learn that in the July election almost 600,000 voters gave their first preference to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party.
You may also be surprised to know that still deluded conservatives remain disenchanted with the media’s favourite Liberal, Malcolm Turnbull, for his epic fail as Prime Minister, especially when compared with the increasingly respected leader he deposed.
Perhaps when media outlets saturate us with “appropriate” thoughts and “acceptable” speech, and nonconformists are banished from television, radio and print, it’s easy to miss what is happening on the uneducated side of the tracks.
After all, members of the better educated and morally superior political class use a compliant media to shelter us from the dangerous, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, sexist, welfare-reforming, climate-change denying bigots who inhabit the outer suburbs and countryside — the people whom Hillary Clinton calls “the deplorables”.
They must be vilified without debate, lest too many of us waver on the virtues of bigger governments, central planning, more bloated bureaucracies, higher taxes, unaffordable welfare, a “carbon-free” economy, more regulations, open borders, gender-free and values-free schools and same-sex marriage; the sort of agenda that finds favour at the UN.
Yet history is solid with evidence that this agenda will never deliver the promised human dignity, prosperity and liberty. Only free and open societies with small governments can do that.
Gradually, the masses are realising something is wrong. Their wealth and income growth is stagnating and their living standards are threatened. They see their taxes wasted on expensive, ill-conceived social programs. They live with migrants who refuse to integrate. They resent having government in their lives on everything from home renovations to recreational fishing, from penalty rates to free speech.
Thomas Jefferson’s warning that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground” is now a stark reality.
The terms “people’s representative” and “public servant” have become a parody. In today’s world we are the servants and, if it suits, we are brushed aside with callous indifference.
Like the Labor government’s disregard for the enormous emotional and financial hurt suffered when, overnight, it shut down live cattle exports on the strength of a television show.
Or like the NSW parliament passing laws banning greyhound racing in the state. There was no remorse for the ruined lives of thousands of innocent people, many of whom won’t recover. Talk of compensation is a travesty.
Or like the victims neighbouring Williamtown and Oakey air force bases, made ill from toxic contamination of groundwater. Around the world it’s known chemical agents used in airport fire drills cause cancer, neurological disease and reproductive disorders, yet the Australian Department of Defence simply denies responsibility. The powerless are hopelessly trapped between health risks and valueless properties.
Similar disdain is shown for those living near coal-seam gas fields and wind turbines. The authorities know of the health and financial impacts but defend operators by bending rules and ignoring guidelines.
If governments believe the ends justify the means, people don’t matter.
When Ernst & Young research finds one in eight Australians can’t meet their electricity bills, rather than show compassion for the poor and the elderly, governments push ruthlessly ahead with inefficient and expensive renewable energy projects.
This newspaper’s former editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell reveals in his book, Making Headlines, how Kevin Rudd, when prime minister, brazenly attempted to use state power to investigate “the relationship between my paper and him”. Rudd’s successor, Julia Gillard, wanted to establish a media watchdog to effectively gag journalists.
None of this is fantasy and it explains why people are losing confidence in the democratic system. Australians feel increasingly marginalised and unrepresented. They are tired of spin and being lied to. They know that data is often withheld or manipulated.
As they struggle to make ends meet, they watch helplessly as the established political class shamelessly abuses its many privileges.
It appears its sole purpose in life is to rule, not to govern. This adds weight to the insightful contention by the Business Council of Australia’s Jennifer Westacott that Australia is in desperate need of a national purpose.
It’s no wonder, to paraphrase American author Don Fredrick, that a growing number of Australians no longer want a tune-up at the same old garage. They want a new engine installed by experts — and they are increasingly of the view that the current crop of state and federal mechanics lacks the skills and experience to do the job.
One Nation may not be the answer, but its garage does offer a new engine.
This is Australia’s version of the Trump phenomenon. Like Donald Trump, Hanson is a non-establishment political disrupter. However, unlike Trump, who may soon occupy the White House, Hanson won’t inhabit the Lodge.
This leaves Australia’s establishment and the central planners very much in control. It means we will remain firmly on our current bigger-government path, financed by higher taxes and creative accounting.
Nobel laureate economist FA Hayek observes in his book The Road to Serfdom: “The more planners improvise, the greater the disturbance to normal business. Everyone suffers. People feel rightly that ‘planners’ can’t get things done.”
But he argues that, ironically, in a crisis the risk is that rather than wind back the role of government, people automatically turn to someone strong who demands obedience and uses coercion to achieve objectives.
Australia is now on that road to tyranny and, with another global recession in prospect and nearly 50 per cent of voters already dependent on government, the incentive is to vote for more government, not less.
The left-wing media echo-chamber will be an enthusiastic cheerleader.
Original article here
It does make you wonder whether some journalists ever talk to ordinary Australians. Five minutes in any pub in the country will render such polling unnecessary.
By Chris Mitchell The Australian 26 September 2016
How to walk a mile in another’s shoes? That is the question great reporters seek to answer when they interview their subjects.
In a time when there has never been more media but it is light years wide and only atoms deep, there is little reward for doing what great newspapers seek to do: provide their readers with genuine understanding of issues and people’s views and motives.
This is a shouty, shallow and callow media age in which young Lefty tyros are rewarded for sharp opinions and violently executed tweets. Their opponents in the right-wing blogosphere too easily drift into hate and conspiracy over genuine inquiry.
So on a range of issues the Left and Right yell at each other in what psychologists refer to as “different emotional languages”, like a husband who really cannot understand what his wife is saying about why their marriage is going awry.
I got that feeling very strongly last Tuesday morning when I heard Andrew Bolt being interviewed by Fran Kelly about Tuesday night’s very interesting program with Linda Burney on Aboriginal recognition. Kelly was perplexed Bolt seemed not to agree with all the received Radio National wisdoms she was trying to get him to concede.
And yet the thinkers behind recognition, people such as Noel Pearson, have always known Andrew — with his ability to articulate the honestly held and genuine concerns of his readers — was the biggest danger to any potential referendum, even if it was first proposed by Andrew’s confidante Tony Abbott.
Just as with same-sex marriage and Muslim immigration the megaphones of the Left show no understanding of, or even empathy for, the great middle ground of Australian public opinion, which is where these issues will be decided.
Those in the maximalist camp on Recognition give every indication of preferring a loss to a win on slightly less ambitious terms. Wiser heads in the movement know proponents who argue for a treaty now would be smarter to take it one step at a time.
Still, I had real admiration for Bolt, who showed tremendous courage to expose himself to a full tilt ABC ideological crusade with newly elected federal Labor MP Burney. The Twittersphere was a feral sewer about him that night and next day.
Having been into the ABC’s Ultimo fortress in inner Sydney several times lately I can say the pursed-lipped tut-tutting is almost overpowering when a critic of the corporation crosses the threshold. Good on Bolt for doing it I reckon.
It was also gutsy of diminutive Burney to front a couple of conservative, and physical, giants in Bolt and Liberal Party federal MP Cory Bernardi in the latter’s Adelaide electoral office.
It is unlikely Bolt or Burney will ever persuade each other but viewers may have sensed an increased recognition on the part of each of the participants of the other’s genuine passion.
An Essential Media Poll published in The Guardian on Wednesday highlighted this sort of hyper partisanship and the inability of many in journalism even to understand how their own country feels about issues.
Given what has happened in Europe since German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the nation’s borders to Syrian refugees a year ago it should have been no surprise to The Guardian or the ABC that half the nation wanted a ban on Muslim immigration.
The poll showed 49 per cent supporting a ban and only 40 per cent opposing. John Barron, hosting The Drum on ABC TV, seemed shocked that even large numbers of Greens and Labor voters supported such a ban.
It does make you wonder whether some journalists ever talk to ordinary Australians. Five minutes in any pub in the country will render such polling unnecessary.
The ideological and media divide is just as wide for same-sex marriage. The sheer brutality of the Left’s reaction to any Christian spokesperson either opposing change or supporting the plebiscite promised by the Coalition elected less than three months ago is vile.
This is not just a challenge for journalism. It is also a problem for the body politic.
If journalists don’t understand how their audiences feel and the media and politics become ever more sharply partisan, how will reformers ever bring about social, economic and political change?
This Balkanisation of social attitudes and the subsequent prioritising of opinion over reporting that seeks to explore and understand is making Western countries increasingly difficult to govern. Even something seemingly uncontestable such as repair of the federal budget now elicits sharply partisan divides among journalists and politicians.
I support recognition but would never think a referendum should even be held if a proposition was so ambitious it was guaranteed to fail.
A libertarian on same-sex marriage, I would nevertheless defend to the death the freedom of Christians, let alone Muslims and Jews, to stick to their religious convictions.
I think a ban on Muslim immigration would be the most dangerous thing the country could do if it really is interested in preventing young men from self-radicalising online.
After all, teenagers feeling so alienated from mainstream society today that they seek solace in the websites of Islamic State would only feel more like outsiders were all Muslim immigration banned. But it should sure as hell be obvious to any thinking journalist why in the face of so many attacks on Western targets during the past two years many Australians would be attracted to such a proposition.
If we try to walk a mile in another’s shoes, we might begin to see why Aboriginal kids would think it unfair to suggest they should just be happy to forget about their heritage and history and again accept what is being offered them. But we might also understand why Bolt believes people today should not be atoning to people many generations and multiple ethnicities away from the brutalities of white settlement.
We might understand the complexities of race from the position of the other person, as Stan Grant has so eloquently tried to explain.
Original article here
Bill Leak cartoon: what are you tweeting about?
Yesterday’s Bill Leak cartoon..
The Guardian Australia’smedia correspondent Amanda Meade sent me an email yesterday morning, telling me the cartoon I had drawn for the same day’s paper was being slammed on Twitter and, incredibly, asking me to explain what I was “trying to say”.
While I can accept that a firestorm on Twitter might be of some interest to The Guardian’s media correspondent, what I can’t understand is that someone in her position would need to have the meaning of a cartoon spelled out for her when it was so glaringly obvious.
And it wasn’t only Meade and god knows how many sanctimonious Tweety Birds that couldn’t work out the meaning of my cartoon without external assistance.
By lunchtime, a quick Google search showed people working at any number of media organisations all over the country were struggling to understand it too.
When little children can’t understand things, they often lash out and throw tantrums.
Workplace and safety considerations prevent adults stamping their feet and hurling themselves onto the playground, so they have to content themselves with spewing invective all over the virtual playground of Twitter.
They take aim at whoever confounded them, claim to be offended and engage in a cathartic process of name-calling and abuse.
This therapeutic process is effective, but flawed.
By enabling tantrum-throwers to re-establish their feelings of moral superiority they can walk away purged, but it doesn’t get to the root of their problem: Chronic Truth Aversion Disorder.
The CTAD epidemic that is raging unchecked through Australia’s social media population is rendering impossible any intelligent debate on serious social issues, such as the rampant violence, abuse and neglect of children in remote indigenous communities.
The reactions of people in an advanced stage of the condition to anything that so much as hints at the truth, while utterly irrational, are also so hostile that anyone inclined to speak the truth understandably becomes afraid to do so.
The cartoon I drew for yesterday’s paper was inspired by indigenous men and people who, without regard for their personal safety, feel compelled to tell the truth whether it incites the CTAD sufferers to attack the men masse or not.
It’s their prescriptions for improving the lives of Aboriginal Australians that inform my own understanding of the subject.
Before the howls of outrage and accusations of racism that were directed at me started filtering through into my Twitter-free world yesterday, I received an email from Anthony Dillon — whose father Colin was Australia’s first Aboriginal policeman and whose evidence was pivotal to the Fitzgerald inquiry into police corruption in Queensland — congratulating me on the cartoon.
In it, Dillon included a message he’d written to his father, in which he said: “Have a look at Bill’s latest cartoon.
“Half of me was crying and the other half was laughing. He has an incredible talent that enables him to blend humour and tragedy without losing the seriousness of the situation.”
So, Amanda, in answer to your question, I was trying to say that if you think things are pretty crook for the children locked up in the Northern Territory’s Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, you should have a look at the homes they came from.
Then you might understand why so many of them finished up there.
Bill Leak has been a cartoonist on The Australian for 22 years. He has won nine Walkley Awards.
Bill Leak cartoon is right when it comes to the big picture
On seeing Bill Leak’s cartoon in this newspaper yesterday morning, I was relieved and thought: “He gets it and is able to communicate it so others will listen. Thank goodness he does.”
Leak was referring to the havoc that alcohol abuse and irresponsible parenting are having on many Aboriginal children today.
In the past, through his cartoons, Leak skilfully has highlighted the broader problems facing Aboriginal Australians. His latest instalment is another timely reminder to stay focused on what matters most.
I should remark upfront that my positive attitude towards the cartoon was not because I am part-Aboriginal but because the children being referred to are Australian children and therefore deserve what most other Australian children take for granted.
This cartoon and the tragedy it depicts is not a race issue, even though some would like to make it a race issue. Leak was communicating a message that many Australians would like to express but are afraid to do so for fear of being labelled a racist.
I know this because in response to my articles I have received many emails through the years stating: “Anthony, I’m glad you said that because as a whitefella I would have been called a racist.” It should not be that way. Let’s not forget that Aboriginal affairs is everyone’s business.
Much of the public, in their insatiable desire for a quick fix or opportunity to play judge and executioner, are keen to see the end consequences of alcohol and parental neglect as shown in images of children in detention centres. However, they are less keen to hear about the causes.
Leak’s cartoon boldly presents the causes. His cartoon in no way dismisses the need for a thorough investigation into the operation of detention centres but clearly shows, to those who are willing to see and listen, that greater attention should be given to the factors that land children in detention centres in the first place.
Leak’s cartoon has done precisely that. For, if we don’t deal with the causes, we will continue to have a situation where far too many Aboriginal children are raised in detention. And where do they graduate to on release? Few will go to university or get a secure job but are likelier to go on and parent children who will experience the sorts of childhoods they themselves experienced.
Fortunately, a few others, such as Jeremy Sammut, Kerryn Pholi, and Janet Albrechtsen, have understood the gravity of the situation depicted in Leak’s cartoon, and have written about it in The Australian in the past week. A picture speaks a thousand words and Leak’s cartoon spoke some hard truths — truths that make some very uncomfortable. Why they are uncomfortable is what we should be focusing on now.
Predictably, the “offenderati” victim brigade and race hounds have been out in full force. They typically use the logic that if they find it offensive then it must be offensive.
First, let’s be clear on one matter: Leak’s cartoon does not cause offence. However, people can choose to take offence and many do. Yes, there is a choice. If there were no choice, then everyone reading the cartoon would be offended. To say his cartoon or anybody else’s causes offence is like saying living next door to a fast-food outlet causes me to put on weight; it does not, it only provides an opportunity to which I have a choice as to how I can respond.
So why would the offended choose to be offended? Taking offence is a sure way to silence those whose words we don’t want to hear. On this matter, many do not wish to hear the realities of the horrors that lead these children to detention.
They do not wish to hear about violent communities, kids wandering the streets at night and child abuse. This shatters their image of the idyllic culture of the wise Aborigines living off the land.
The saying attributed to Einstein is relevant here: “The ears won’t hear what the heart can’t accept.” Leak’s cartoon has simply highlighted some problems facing Aboriginal people that need to be discussed openly. Rather than taking offence, discussions should be solution focused.
But focusing on solutions to the problems of employment in remote areas, violence and child abuse is difficult. Taking offence is so much easier.
But focused on solutions we must be, and the first step towards solving the problems is to cease the denial.
While this newspaper continues to provide a forum for discussing the serious problems facing Aboriginal communities, I have observed far too often the common response of: “Yeah, but these problems are in the non-Aboriginal population as well.”
This is true. Interestingly, when discussing the problem of diabetes within the Aboriginal community, I have never had anyone retort: “Yeah, but diabetes is in the non-Aboriginal population as well.” Yes, dysfunction (like diabetes) is present to varying degrees in all communities, but it is undeniable that it is a far more serious problem in Aboriginal communities.
Predictably, the accusations of racism have been forthcoming. Let’s be clear; this is not about race. These children who are ending up in detention and fast becoming another “stolen generation” are Australian children. Let’s not forget that Aboriginal people are people first and Aboriginal second.
The obsession with the spectre of racism is yet another distraction from discussing the more serious problems that Leak and others bring to the public arena.
Let’s get our priorities right. I ask those who are fearful about the consequences of free speech, or are upset by a cartoon, if they worry about where their next meal will come from; if they will sleep in a safe dwelling tonight without having to share a mattress with a dog; if they have a job, and if their children are in a school receiving a first-class education. I ask because it is a reminder of where we should be focusing our time, energy and resources.
And when I say “we”, I am of course referring to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians alike. One group of people should not be precluded from talking about Aboriginal matters and criticising attitudes and practices purely on the basis of race. Again, Aboriginal affairs is everybody’s business.
Anthony Dillon is a postdoctoral fellow at the Australian Catholic University. His father, Colin Dillon, was Australia’s first Aboriginal police officer.
Original article here
Juan Cartagena: “The problem of building trust online is not a fad but it is fundamental.”
Traity CEO Juan Cartagena knows how to measure trust
by Rachel Botsman 4 August 2016 AFR
In 2011, Spanish-born Juan Cartagena was scammed buying a computer on Gumtree, the second-hand goods website.
He lost £250 in the fraudulent transaction. Around the same time, he was trying to get in contact with a girl who went to the same school as he did, on Facebook. But at the start, she wasn’t sure about meeting him in person. Cartagena even sent her his résumé to try to convince her he was a decent person in the hope of getting a date. Both experiences pointed to the same problem: building trust and proving that a person is trustworthy online is tricky and taxing.
Cartagena, a 34-year-old entrepreneur with a background in electrical engineering, realised this was a problem worth solving not just for himself but for other people. In 2012, with close friends Jose Fernandez and Borja Martin, he founded Traity, a reputation standard to help people prove their trustworthiness across the web. To date, the Mountain View-based start-up has raised more than $US4.7 million.
In the age of companies such as Airbnb, Uber and eBay that depend on the willingness of strangers to trust one another at a global scale, the idea behind Traity seems big and logical. But as Cartagena has discovered, getting people to value their online reputation is challenging because we still don’t quite get how it works or understand its value.
Canadian ice hockey great Wayne Gretzky famously said, “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.” It’s a metaphor that resonates with many visionary entrepreneurs. So how does Cartagena think Traity can crack the future of trust?
Why do you want to help solve the difficulties of proving you are trustworthy online?
The problem of building trust online is not a fad but it is fundamental. When people don’t trust each other, there are social and economic limitations to human transactions. And this is a big problem to solve because we now operate in very large communities, open networks, where we don’t know the buyers and sellers. We are transacting with strangers all the time and it requires a new level of understanding and trust between people. Because of my engineering background, I think about economic inefficiencies and how to solve them in ways that generate real economic value. So I figured I could build a trust engine that would help those transactions happen more fluently and eliminate barriers to trade.
What is Traity trying to achieve?
Traditional systems of proving whether people are worth trusting are not particularly effective or empowering. They diminish and devalue people when they go through the automated screening processes to get a credit score. This score then seriously affects how easy or difficult it is for people to make all kinds of transactions, from securing a loan to a rental agreement to getting a job.
I want to build a world where more people can trust one another and where we are not solely judged by traditional systems of assessment. There will always be lack of trust between people, but if we can make a dent into how people can enter into the economic graph, then it would be very significant.
How do Traity reputation standards work?
To help people trust one another online, we give people a reputation passport that consists of different dimensions. The first is to do with identification, which is proving you are who you say you are. Next, it has to do with behaviours, which shows interests you may have common with another person. For example, you both play tennis or love cats. The final dimension is about transaction data, which means analysing people’s ratings, reviews, history and testimonials to see how they have behaved in past. These components create a personal reputation standard you can use across the web that can empower people to achieve things or access opportunities that may not have otherwise been possible.
Traity recently received a patent for a “network of trust”. How will it work?
The patent basically says that we are like a social network. If you trust somebody on the Traity network, you use the “trust” button in the same way on Twitter you have the “follow” button. But if that person misbehaves in some way, that will have implications for you; it will lower your reputation.
Your reputation does not increase if the person you follow behaves well. It is designed this way to create incentives to trust only people you really believe are trustworthy and not have a network of a thousand followers. We expect people to have networks of three to five people who really trust each other and to be able to use the web of trust in different contexts.
You are working on future-oriented products. How were you able to convince investors to trust your vision?
At our first investor meeting, I said, “Look, Minority Report is going to happen. The key question is, who is going to do it? It may be Google, it may be Facebook, or it may be a small start-up from Spain.” They were very impressed by that because I was thinking 15 years ahead. When I talk about Traity, I tell stories to get people to empathise. I usually put people in the framework of a future that’s five to 10 years’ away, full of micro-entrepreneurs and micro-franchises of companies powered by the likes of Etsy, Uber or Airbnb. I tell investors that these companies can make a significant impact on the GDP and they all need better systems of trust.
What makes the founders of Traity a good team?
I met Jose, one of my co-founders, when we were eight years old in school. Jose completed his PhD in machine learning and I went on to get an MBA. I met Borja, a phenomenal programmer, when we were 18. We have complementary skills: Jose brings an academic point of view; Borja is the pragmatic executor who can design and deliver the actual products himself; and I am the hustler and driver of the long-term vision.
What are the challenges of making Traity a successful business?
When we started, we thought that people would want to see each other’s reputation and profiles from Traity, and maybe pay a few cents to see, say, your profile. That was not true. People aren’t used to paying for what they already think they know. That’s why we have shifted our focus on how trust profiles and technology can be leveraged to transform the delivery of products people already buy, like house insurance or income protection.
The insurance industry will fundamentally have to change from basing products on assets to focusing on insuring personal behaviours. Reputation data can help large insurance companies give more efficient pricing to people who deserve it.
What keeps you and your team motivated?
Two weeks ago, I got the team together for a meeting. I asked everyone to complete the sentence “Traity is important because…” When they finished, I said, “Take whatever you have written and write, “And that is important because…” It allowed us to focus on the inner purpose of what we’re trying to do. It was really exciting to see what everyone came up with because most people had written something to do with people deserving a fairer world. Thinking of that refuels me and I was reminded that I’m starting something that could really improve the status quo.
You are asking people to trust a start-up with their data. Why should people trust Traity?
We transparently explain what we do and how we do it, so people have confidence in how we’re using and treating data. As a company, we discuss ethics in terms of giving people full control over their data and giving them the right to eliminate an infraction on a reputation after a certain period of time. Our competitive advantage is not to tightly control data, but to empower people to use it better. There are tangible things we are doing to prove we are the right people to be trusted with sensitive data. For instance, we are fingerprinting everything on the blockchain, the public ledger technology that enables people to verify something actually happened. This means in the unfortunate case that Traity goes bust or a customer decides they don’t want to be a Traity customer any more, they can still have full control over their data and take it with them.
What will Traity never do with people’s data?
Large companies have made us offers such as: “We’ll pay you $50,000 if you can analyse our users in X way.” I’m very happy we’ve said no to those offers even though we don’t have any revenue yet. We don’t want to be a typical data analysis company. Traity is a company that focuses on giving people the proactive ability to decide how they want to use their reputation. To give them the same control as they would over a university [report] card; they decide where, when and who they’ll show their card to.
Original article here