Category Archives: Foreign Interference

Australian Bill of Rights NOT Passed 24/3/2020

The Australian Bill of Rights Bill was not passed on the 24 March 2020.  I have posted the details of the Bill followed by my own experience as to why an Australian Bill of Rights is Essential for Public Safety.

This is a link to Dr. Patch Adams and the fact he cried of Human Rights.  He travels the world to the places where people are deeply disadvantaged. I travelled to Russia with him and I saw him cry over a little girl who was deaf and dumb, he made her smile, she was fascinated by him.  I filmed their interaction. He is a deeply kind man. Kindness matters today and will change the future.  Visit:  https://wpas.worldpeacefull.com/2018/09/patch-adams-cried-over-human-rights-abuses/

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6404

Bills not passed (current Parliament)

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The bill will have no financial impact.

Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2019

Type
Private
Sponsor(s)WILKIE, Andrew, MP
Originating house
House of Representatives
Status
Not Proceeding
Parliament no
46

Track (What’s this?)

Permalink

Summary

Gives effect to certain provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by: declaring an Australian Bill of Rights; providing that any Commonwealth, state or territory law that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency; specifying that Commonwealth, state and territory laws must be interpreted consistently with the Bill of Rights; and providing the Australian Human Rights Commission with a range of additional powers and functions in relation to the rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

Progress

House of Representatives
Introduced and read a first time 16 Sep 2019
Second reading moved 16 Sep 2019
Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42) 24 Mar 2020

Documents and transcripts

You can open the pdf or Word document’s below to read about the rights the politicians didn’t want us to have.

Text of Australian Bill of Rights

Word Format PDF Format HTML Format

 

Explanatory memoranda

Word Format PDF Format HTML Format

Proposed amendments

No proposed amendments have been circulated.

 

Schedules of amendments

No documents at present

A Personal Rationale as to why an Australian Bill of Rights is Essential for Public Safety

In the public interest.

I have spent 7 hours non stop writing about why we need an Australian Bill of Rights.  After my story I have pasted the government legislation that was proposed by Andrew Wilkie MP for Dennison (Tasmania).  It clearly is not wanted by the majority of politicians as it wasn’t passed. 

The 24th of March 2020 (5 days ago) was a day Australians will not realise was the most important day of our 200 year history.  Australians were in the midst of having all their rights to movement shutdown with the spread of the coronavirus. We as a people, and others around the world, are experiencing dictatorial edicts for the first time where we are being told we do not have the rights to engage in business on site (must go online), we are learning new words like ‘social distancing’, people are becoming unemployed as millions are likely to lose work given many live from pay cheque to pay cheque and industries are being shutdown given a virus.  I note that President Trump is stating his nation will go back to work next month as the virus affects the elderly and vulnerable and he sees that action can be taken to protect them and that the rest are healthy.  Our government is saying 6 months which could completely collapse the Australian economy.  However, on a brighter note people are talking about a new social contract, they get time with families, time to think about global issues and the sort of world we are moving into.  So maybe this little virus is timely for transformational change.  As we lose rights maybe we will gain more rights in the future as we awaken. 

I’ve been inspired for some time to advance an Australian Bill of Rights. This writing below has been inspired as I wasn’t able to stop typing and went deeper and deeper into this topic as it is dear to my heart.   This focus occurred as I experienced directly my own rights been violated and suffered greatly as I had to find truth to stop the pain I felt.

I have been denied the right to shelter, to housing, to social security (revoked due to conscientious objection to corruption), to early release of superannuation under severe hardship (no money, no shelter), to equality before the law (no access to legal representation).

Eviction

When evicted from my home due to a landlord breaching Council by-laws, there was no right to be rehoused. I was on a low income and had no ability to pay rent as rents were unaffordable.  On route up north I was informed by a Centrelink officer (welfare), that I was not in equal partnership inside Centrelink, outside the system I have equal status.  I said I am a citizen and I am equal. It made no sense that I give up my rights because they give me income support which is my right as a citizen under the Australian Constitution (Section 51, subsection 23a).  Under a public/private contract system privatised job providers create a contract and have job seekers (welfare recipients) sign in a unequal agreement to activities which, in my case I knew would not get me work as I was professionally trained and I was having to apply for low wage jobs.  The class system was evident in the welfare sector, had I been at a professional agency I would be given coffee, sit in plush suites and offered jobs starting at $50,000 – $200,000.  At the privatised welfare agency I am offered $17 per hour in one case and I was not informed who the employer was, the treatment was evidently discriminatory breaching human rights but normalised in a unquestioned class system where a demographic serves.  In addition to ineffective job provision I had real concerns about the program Work for the Dole which did not build skills but kept people working against their will, breaching the other human rights protocols. In a professional setting there is no way a person would accept working for no payment in areas that had no bearing on their work.  It wasn’t even an apprenticeship training program.  I have been to bonded slavery camps where people worked for free their whole lives and their fingers were worn to the bone.  I was not lost on slavery.

Judiciary

In the Judiciary I was confronted with perverting the course of justice, misconduct and clear inequality before the law. I had no way to navigate the judicial system or have legal advice to ensure I knew my rights and had a strategy on how to defend myself to ensure justice happened.  I was not prepared for legal trickery, deceptive conduct, using the courts for advantage, selecting judges, intimidation and demonisation. I knew I was confronting a form of subtle bullying using the fear of jail and costs to ensure compliance when I was innocent.  I was even told that principled people get chewed up in the system, as if to be principled is a boon for lawyers, given they make more money if a person fights for what is right or moral, upholding principles as more valuable than making money out of cost orders or legal precedents.  I found the comment disconcerting and at the same time an insight into those who seek justice and lose everything.  Issues of misogyny were evident and inequality was in plain sight given comments about my low status and gender. Abuse was discounted as not important as I was the Appellant not the one who started the legal process.  I lost my right to an Appeal given I was put through a process on another matter to then have it turn instantly into a quick Appeal then set aside.  I was pressured, not unlike a forced confession, to sign an informal undertaking when the reverse is what happened to me. My perseverance was due to my desire to ensure a matter was resolved. The allegations I confronted were false and occurred after I reported sexual harassment. I knew the real loss was that the other party was not held to account, not as a form of punishment, but realisation as the behaviour causes harm. This included those in positions of power who were behind the attempted criminalisation (bullying) of the matter.  If they are not held to account and justice not done then a silent green light conveys deception, misconduct and illegality works. This makes it unsafe for others in the future.  I felt a duty of care for those coming after me who had no idea what they were up against. I didn’t want them to suffer as I had, I felt this duty deeply, particularly as an older woman.  

I came to learn that lawyers are engaged in activities that are not honest and wording is changed to hide information legally and signatures changed. They play tricks as if it is a game that the uninformed can’t possibly see or understand as most haven’t studied a law degree for 6 years.  I was most definitely at a disadvantage.  I learned that judges were immune from prosecution no matter their conduct. I felt that was wrong as no-one should be above the law if we are equal. I discovered I had no right to have injustice addressed by regulators as my detailed report style of complaints were technically not accepted, although they were read, as I did receive a response as part of the rejection of the complaint. This in itself was a miracle but likely due to my 500+ page report.  Again, analysis and justification in the regulator response was not accurate and implied mental health issues which appears a ‘modus operandi’ to discredit a person. What do you do when you are completely silenced and unsupported? Where to from here? 

A last point, I spoke to a lawyer yesterday who left the legal profession as he saw Justice was not done. He didn’t believe in it anymore. He saw people get off crimes due to technicalities and he said it was ‘not right’.

The business of law is a key issue where the objective is profit not justice. Justice is a noble principle and I believe it is the very basis of peace building in our society. If Justice is not done then trust in public institutions diminishes and the law becomes a tool of abuse.

Corruption

This raised the issue for me of corruption and it made me feel more concerned as the desire to be heard intensified, it is like a cry for help. I saw and felt human rights as a central issue as it came up overtime again and again. With perseverance I found the words to express what had happened that was concealed but loudly felt in my experience.  Unfortunately, human rights are hard to prove as abuse can be subtle and collusion covered over through collegial relationships and status.  If you have no witnesses or advocates you cannot find parity or justice to ensure those in positions of power uphold standards, accountability, legality, transparency and justice.  Their offices must be free of corruption as they may have many people under their control and if they do not respect people on a basic level they will do harm.

No Rights

The experience of not having rights leaves you in a position of utter powerlessness, or at least you perceive you are powerless as no matter what you do or say nothing happens, you cannot affect change.  It is not unlike trying to defend yourself against an attack you cannot clearly see as there is no evidence trail but you know what is happening is harmful.  You are confronting those who know the system and know how to remain unseen.  Bullying is normalised and it is a key tactic.  Bullying is a repeated negative behaviour, that is not a misunderstanding, but designed to intimidate and harm.  You will suffer deep trauma as it goes on so long and you cannot understand why you are treated with such disrespect and lack of care. It personally hurts as the suffering is ignored. You will honestly assert your case over and over believing you are not understood, you then try to find a solution, you will seek help, you try to be heard, and you then seek another pathway to resolution via mediation so that the other party can understand how their actions impacted. Yet over and over you find people who see you as unequal as this sentiment permeates many areas, you become a number and unless you tick the criteria you are moved on. You know instinctively that parity must happen if social stability and harmony is to occur.  If it doesn’t then toxic behaviour is rewarded and this becomes ‘how we do things around here’ as there is no rebalancing of the scales of justice.  You realise you are not heard and a sense of no exit from the problem, as the path leads to a desperate desire to suicide.  I have lay on the floor in the fetal position in agony desperately seeking the courage to finish.  I had no mental health issue, it was in response to non-resolution, silent abuse (silent treatment) and the knowledge that I had no rights.  It was extremely painful.  I wrote so many reports as I had to solve the problem to find my power, as I felt disrespected and I realised my deeply felt values of equality were being confronted.  It impacted me at a very deep level, it was more than cultural beliefs, it was a sense of my humanity being threatened.  When you announce your experience of desiring to suicide to those in positions of authority they remain silent sending a message indicating they don’t care at all about your life.  It weighs heavily on your heart as you realise you are not valued, respected and have no way of getting help.  It is like a silent scream. You cannot let it go as it feels fundamental, much of what you feel you can’t articulate for a long time.

Truth Matters

In my case, I persevered as a peacemaker as I had to know the truth as I felt the pursuit of power and control was the barrier to peace in our community.  I knew I had to find out and understand the nature of power. At times it is a desperately lonely road and isolating situation and you have to be very strong to survive it. Inner truth was a light in the darkness for me.  To be honest spiritually this light grew brighter the darker it became as I had nowhere to go but within to discover the real power was my sense of love, peace and forgiveness directed towards others.  My life felt threatened at a deep level and it awakened me to the importance of human rights.  Until you go through the revoking of rights you cannot empathise with how incredibly hard it is.

Systemic Structural Violence

Violations of human rights is a form of structural violence that can’t be proved as a violent action but the actual structures are based on inequality e.g. income (access), private education (privilege, status), gender superiority, career path history and prominent groups who are silently validated professionally and ideologically. The public are not aware of these contrived signals, traditional pathways and economic structures that filter the right people into positions of power who share an ethos or membership of recognised groups and ideologies.  Therefore, there is silent bias is in the system and this has consequences for those on low to middle level incomes who cannot afford prolonged court cases rendering justice out of their reach.  This is how resentment builds in the community, it has its basis in unfairness due to inequality.  

Freedom of Information is not free

Another area of inequity is the Freedom of Information (FOI) process that can be entered by the public to gain access to their own information held by the public sector (providing they are not privatised).  In this process it becomes evident that users pay costs is used to charge people to access their own information.  The barrier of costs means that people will not consent to long searches as they have to pay every 15 minutes in some cases or by the page and they can’t know the final cost or if they can afford it.  Moreover, when making the request they can’t know or identify the person who would know where their information is as they don’t have insider knowledge.  It is expected that they identify officers and dates. There are legal barriers to prevent access to information which is essential if the public need to check if information held is correct or to identify corruption, illegality or incompetence in information gathering, storage and accuracy.  When you go through these processes you can see how lawyers have set the bar high to block sensitive information, particularly in contentious cases which is necessary for a functional democratic society. When this becomes difficult you know that the balance of power has changed and you are not being served.

Conscience or Power?

What became evident after many years was the fact that no response or accountability meant that conscience did not evoke change, only power moves people of influence.  I believe there is a gender orientation, as women typically are emotionally tuned in and they will respond and empathise readily, with males it is harder, particularly if they are socialised to suppress emotions as a weakness and professionalism projects as control and unfeeling.  I will add that some women can be this way if they are a masculine female.  Some men can be feminine masculine which makes them more feeling. So it is not a hard and fast rule, to be fair. It became clear that abuse is about suppression of emotions, detachment and power behaviours not a simple misunderstanding. Within this context human rights abuses happen as people don’t feel naturally to rectify a situation or from a business perspective have a image or reputation to protect coupled with risk management strategies that protect the legal entity as the people are seen as a threat.  It is very sad this has happened. As innocent people can suffer for years with no resolution at all.

Dismantling of Democracy and Globalisation

We are witnessing the dismantling of democracy, an unequal playing field, globalisation where money talks and the business ideology permeating the public sector as if this is efficiency and the public sector is inefficient.  The reality in my opinion is that the public assets are viewed as cash cows and ownership (privatisation) of public assets ensures a sound revenue base given the secure flow of taxation dollars and if the public/private partnership arrangement is contracted in a Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) with large multinationals, they can sue governments if profits are impacted by cancelling a contract or some other form of disruption. The public have witnessed corruption and issues of corporate welfare where business is rewarded with profits whilst those in the most disadvantaged positions are treated with less rights, lower income and less access to desperately needed services.  It makes you contemplate landlords and surfs – the surfs who should be grateful for the crumbs that fall off the table! They experience diminishing conditions, rising costs, abuses of rights and growing powerlessness and victimisation.  The reality is that power as greed corrupts and corporate concentration (high profits) creates distortions in respect of democratic decision making as corporate donations curry influence or corporates enter politics to ensure favourable treatment or to ensure their industry profits from a restructured government sector. Thus the playing field is biased and increasingly causing harm to ‘We the People’ as those they serve are increasingly corporate interests justified as economic growth.

Silencing and Weakening of Dissent

There are growing concerns here in Australian in the silencing dissent, suppression of media freedom, changes to anti-discrimination legislation, strengthening of religious freedom (favouring one group over another) in a traditionally secular parliament, real income of welfare payments falling below the poverty line, privatisation of public services, increasing users pay for public goods (public sector assets) as ownership is gradually transferred through public/private partnership and the list goes on.  

Sovereignty vs Foreign Interference

The most concerning issue that I realised was the Smart Cities agenda. This complete transformation of the economy is not understood by the public as there is no plebiscite to discuss radical changes to our lives.  Although same sex had a plebiscite referendum which I believe some thought would fail.  There are issues of foreign interference raised by ASIO and others. On the one hand the US is seen to infiltrate through IT sector and contractors and on the other hand there are issues of Chinese influence here.  Others speak of Israel and on it goes.  Sovereignty is a key issue and clearly if powerful interests are paying their way into changing our lives, We the People have a right to know given the public is paying for government and it is supposed to act in the public’s interests, not special interests.  

Digital Transformation of Society without a Plebiscite Referendum

So if there are plans to disrupt the society with replacing human intelligence with artificial intelligence, or jobs with automation and digitisation of all public and private systems forcing people to use online for all their transactions, communications and activities, it sets up a scenario of a cyber reality replacing the physical reality and the implications for privacy are enormous and understated.  Do the public want their identity demanded every time they transact? Do they want online tracking? Do they want voice recordings? Do they want facial recognition? DNA prints? Their debit and credit cards to have tracing chips where everything can be traced, profiled and categorised.  Do they want iPhones that record everything we said generating algorithms directing paid advertisements to pop up acknowledging what is talked about breaching privacy with impunity?

Privacy and Metadata Gathering 

The issue of metadata gathering is a huge issue for the public.  It is often justified under the guise of national security, thus trading off rights for security asserting threats such as the war on terrorism.  We then find out from whistle blowers that criminal cartels are operating at the highest levels of power and have been collecting data for years without our consent and still doing it.  It is shocking as a citizen to find out about illegal black operations as disruptions and high level funding of crime e.g. Deep State and Shadow Government as referenced by ex CIA high level whistle blower Kevin Shipp.  His videos explain the depth of this issue.

https://www.fortheloveoffreedom.net/

Citizens Feel Overwhelmed and Powerless

As a citizen this leaves you feeling that this is out of control.  You feel completely powerless to do anything as politicians are not jumping up and down in outrage, then you wonder who you can trust?  People appear positioned in sensitive portfolios to protect others and you think you are reporting to an authority to discover nothing is done, it raises real questions and fears about who is protecting the public interest as disclosures are protected and criminalised by legislation.  How do we get the right to know what is happening in our government?

When corruption exists as a citizen, if you have bravely spoken up as I have, you don’t feel safe as you are not protected at all.  You find out you phone is monitored by foreign intelligence agencies as I am a peacemaker. You realise that peace people are seen as a threat.  The FBI are documented as having infiltrated peace groups which reveals a pro war stance. I was not anti-war in my work but more interested in developing inner peace and universal values refer www.worldpeacefull.com  I have been astounded how I’ve been deemed a Person of Interest because I want a peaceful loving world.  On radio I recorded whistle blowers and met a few and had no clue that this was deemed threatening, I was innocent in actual fact but just following a thread which lead me down a very long road to where I am now typing away here.

When a person is targeted, and in the knowledge of having dealt with lawyers, that your image can be manipulated, you can be set up, evidence falsified, you can be criminalised and your reputation called into question if you dare to challenge those in power.  I realised that the left/right paradigm was really not true, it was more about challenging power and the need for power and status.  I assumed I was equal.

I know I was vilified and categorised as left wing when I wasn’t left wing or part of culture wars. I found out more about these conflicts later as the real war in my view is about unfettered access to furthering commercial interests without inhibiters.  The underlying issue is addiction to a way of life and the great fear of losing power. Those feeling threatened don’t sit down and question their fear, they will demonise and seek ways to silence rather than hear the critique which in truth is for their highest good. That sentiment is the same in reverse, a genuine critique of me is in my highest good. The fact no-one talks means we don’t know each other, just words on a cyber page and silently categorised without real contact and knowing of what the problem is and how to solve it.  That is what a mature society would do. In our society we still fight wars without conscious understanding that ultimately these fights undermine the orchestrator of it and is a lose/lose for all.  We are connected as humans and what we do to others returns. This is a universal law. That is why empires fall as Gandhi wisely observed.

When you go through these injustices it leaves you stunned and I would say the façade of democracy crashes down as you look for solid ground.  Values for me is the solid ground, corruption is like shifting sand, you never know where you stand and you don’t know who to trust, even those I believed in fell from grace. I understand why people go into denial as they can’t handle the truth of what they thought was solid to be not real at all. 

You realise in the system you have no power or ability to protect yourself from those who do not respect human rights and prefer to take all rights away.  We’ve seen the US and Israel leave the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is extremely concerning and yet there is no real response to it. 

From a public point of view, it is very frightening where we are going and we have to stop and think deeply about this direction as it will impact the children’s future. For myself I see a Brave New World, rising fascism, white supremacists, secrecy, paedophilia, secret societies, monitoring the public, targeting people, secret police forming, misinformation circulating in layers, growing inequality (weakening rights and access), deception (off balance sheet or private status), selling off public assets which renders the public having no rights yet still paying taxation for services they have to then pay for again (users pay) when it should be free. 

Public/Private Organisations and Partnership

The Government Organisational Register reveals how many government departments, government organisations and contractors are engaged in government activity. 

Refer https://www.directory.gov.au/reports/australian-government-organisations-register

See listing of the categories.  The most interesting graphics were found at this link: 

https://www.directory.gov.au/sites/default/files/agor_summary_of_key_statistics_2019-12-31.pdf  

Footnote from Summary of Key Statistics: 

  • Principal bodies (Blue)-bodies connected with government policies, purposes or services which are prescribed under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the related rules. 
  • Secondary bodies (Green)- committees, councils, boards, statutory office holders, consultative bodies and working groups linked to the Australian Government. 
  • Other bodies (orange) – Subsidiaries of corporate Commonwealth entities and Commonwealth companies; Joint ventures, partnerships and other companies; National Law bodies; and, Bodies linked to the Australian Government through statutory contracts, agreements and delegations.

The pie chart and bar chart indicated only 15% (Primary, blue) of departments are accountable under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. 

The secondary, other (green, orange) colours appear not to be accountable under the Act.  For me the issue is government oversight and public rights (through ownership).  I felt concerned at this private/public arrangements and what that means for human rights and citizens rights.

Note the ‘other bodies’ (orange) reveal higher proportions in the Departments of – Finance, infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (Smart Cities is in this portfolio) and Prime Minister and Cabinet. Does this mean other influencers who are not the public?

I am concerned there are complex multifaceted agendas going on that are not validated by the public interest test.   Given my experience I do not feel the public are safe if they speak up and this challenges power, hence the increasing feeling of repression and laws changing.  I do not believe I am safe when all I want is a peaceful world but I have challenged power in order to speak the truth but not with a negative intention but more an investigative challenge as I felt something was wrong and I felt duty bound to say something as people are often too scared.  I don’t have children or a partner so I have nothing to lose.  I don’t even have assets. 

Good Governance Supports Freedom

I can’t live in a world where I am not free to determine my own life, to live my own dreams and to express who I am without fear or reprisal.  I don’t want to live in fear but in hope and inspiration.  I can’t live in a world that does not respect the people or pathologically cooperates in order to change systems to benefit the few allowing many to be harmed.  I have real concerns about capitalism without government oversight.  I am in support of good government. I do not want the government to fail

I want to live in a world where everyone lives to their highest potential, where they express their voices, talents and build together a culture of peace where we learn to live in harmony with other cultures, ideologies, religions and utilise differences to creatively expand our civilisation together.  I believe there is greatness in the public that is suppressed due to the way we have structured via economics and power. I want to live in a community where we feel happiness and productivity is measures by wellbeing, caring and Gross National Happiness rather than infinite economic growth that only denudes resources and encourages market concentration of power favouring one group over another and excessive exploitation not only of people but the planet.  I want to live in a world where we can use our creativity to envisage a better world to ensure our environment is protected, our wildlife do not become extinct, the oceans are not fished out, that the earth systems are not polluted, damaged or radiated causing cancer.  I want to live in a world where the public around the world have a say over their lives and to have a genuine vote in a system that serves people without the need to control or rig the outcomes.

Despair at the Loss of Equality and the Indifference to Violence

I have cried at the loss of egalitarianism (equality) in my country which is what we are famous for. I have cried at the Royal Commissions into abuse of children, the elderly, disabled, mental health causing harm to those vulnerable.  I have cried at the incarceration of people in private jails who are innocent, forced to work or abused inside and outside are always labelled as ex criminals (no reform or forgiveness).  I have cried for innocent refugees incarcerated in the offshore detention centres desperately uncertain about their futures, left to waste for years in detention, suffering psychological abuse, separated from families and desperate to the point of suicide, some sewing up their lips and their lives oversighted by private companies with military connections.  I marvelled at the billions spent on these centres when they could have roamed freely around society until their applications were processed.  

Actions Taken in Our Name Harming Disadvantaged Persons

As a citizen I am dismayed at what is happening in our name and my own treatment as a citizen who has so much to offer my society yet when perceived as unemployed or homeless I experienced discrimination on the basis of the protestant work ethic and business paradigms. I was even told that I was economically unviable because I was serving society and not placing a money value on my vocation.  I am different I am not motivated by money, what moves me is love and this sense of duty of care.  I sit here aching in my arms and legs having sat for 4 hours straight. I feel passionate as the desire to communicate is so strong. It comes from the deepest part of who I am, it comes with innocence as truth from my perspective must be spoken as my right to freedom of speech is essential for my wellbeing. I desire to contribute to democracy and the right to be human (human rights).

The Duty of Citizenship

I felt a strong sense of citizenship as a duty to speak up as I am a peacemaker.  I dreamed I was teaching peace not as a political statement but as a state of being. I have concerns for the public wellbeing, health and safety.  

Other health issues such as electromagnetic frequency (EMF) radiation emitted by iPhones, computers, electronic devices, smart meters (electro smog) as Wi-Fi is powering the Internet of Things (IoT).   EMF and 5G are reported by a growing number of experts in the media as detrimental to the health and safety of citizens and that inappropriate and inadequate testing has occurred given industry influence in government and this determined push to roll out this IT SMART technological future.  It is evident that private studies skew information as Al Gore demonstrated with environmental studies, the same applies with EMF. 

Lobbyists and revolving doors

The issue of lobbyists is a big issue as they have the resources, expertise and strategies to impact policy, influence politicians and divert public resources to specific industry interests rather than to benefit the public.  Profit is the big issue here as they are utilising this mechanism as a strategic marketing approach to garner influence and market share.  Australia has a Registry for Lobbyist and you can gain an idea of who is influencing decision makers.  It should be noted that influence can be done without money and can be in-kind and hidden in creative ways. However, this link gives an idea of registered lobbyists seeking the best outcome for their industries.  https://lobbyists.ag.gov.au/register 

In addition, lobbyists can go one step further and enter Parliament to advocate for industry interests not the public. This has been clearly evidenced in the United States where each politician has an industry or foreign power influencing their decisions. The Federal Communications Commission head Tom Wheeler who formerly worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry. Many speak about the revolving door into industry back into government on a wheel. Wheeler was critiqued for not providing stringent testing for 5G but rather focusing on industry profits which appears the weakness, as government becomes a business not a representative of the public. The public can’t match this type of power or influence as people are individuals not operating as a group, many have been made to feel they have no power or say and then they turn off in resignation. This is where the people lose power.  I felt the same but I persevered and used my experience to learn about power and look for empowerment and insight as the people do have power when they come together. 

Smart Cities Technology and Potential Weaponisaion concerns

Weapons experts and ex intelligence officers become whistle-blowers and reveal the intelligence community is being privatised (and weaponised as contractors for private business) and this creates greater risks in respect of public oversight and civilian safety (if deemed the enemy). 

The Smart Cities technologies are sold as labour saving, predictive, automating households.  The NBN networks are sold to provide better downloads yet no information is lost as ex PM Malcolm Turnbull famously said. You research and learn of Smart Meters with sim cards sending data to overseas private companies who gather and compile data determining movement in the house, technologies used, mapping household activities, behaviours etc. without any input from the public.  Then you hear military experts like Mark Steele (ex Naval weapons expert) saying that public infrastructure of lighting can be weaponised through LED lights as energy directed weapons. You discover lights can be used to track and triangulate iPhone locations, gathering personal data, profiling and identifying people as mentioned by the US whistle-blower Edward Snowden.  

As a citizen I actually feel very uncomfortable when I see cameras in lights.  I have been to Russia and this appears worse to me than any politburo.  I have been facially recognised, after I attended a Senate hearing into AFP and Press Freedom.  I gave a poem ‘We the People’ to Senator Kristina Keneally who I recall indicating there will never be a Charter of Rights.  I saw a parliamentary secretary look at me, and tap into a computer. The next day or so I was walking across a plaza, only person there, a bright light came on and a camera, I saw police insignia.  My mother was driving her car at night, which I drove to Parliament, she was pulled over by police a few days later.  Ironically I was walking and saw the flashing lights in the distance, I didn’t know she was being pulled over and breath tested.  We both believe the police thought it was me. It makes you wonder about random drug tests, the collection of everyone’s mobile numbers, IDs, DNA and the intensive monitoring of the public when the issue of violence has not increased other than overseas activities which today are being questioned.  So I don’t feel confident these technologies will protect me, I am more concerned about being harmed by those who do not value the freedoms and values I deeply internalise and defines democracy as my culture.

Foreign Interference Impacting Rights

The issue of government allowing of unregulated foreign IT high tech and telecommunications companies to breach privacy and using data as the new gold standard as billions and trillions can be made by advertisers and associated industries accessing private information for commercial use and resale as a market. 

Again, the targeting of those who disagree or dissent with what is happening can be quietly designated as a form of ‘enemy’ is of great concern in democratic societies. It is not the same as breaking a law and legal action, this type of targeting is of an intelligence nature and removes problems illegally.  That is the concern.

The public in democratic societies are not aware of what oppression is about. They still believe they have the right to speak up, they do not know that the democratic principles are changing to a technocracy where rights will be based on access (consent). No access will occur if you don’t agree with terms and conditions, so you lose the right to say ‘no’ and it impacts your quality of life.  The company protects their legal rights. Thus sections of the community could become increasingly unsafe as those monitoring do not hold the same democratic beliefs or basic respect of human rights and equality.  This is the core issue.

So what can we do?
How can we be protected if we don’t agree with this
Brave New World?

Homeless have No Rights

I became homeless because I didn’t agree with the job provider system and I refused to give consent (sign a contract) with private organisations that were not delivering jobs or real options and pathways.  I was cut off income support (revoked access) as I couldn’t comply with corruption and my democratic right to say ‘no’ to what I believe is not in my interests or harmful to me. I realised private companies were profiting from disadvantage and rorting the system given ABC 7.30 Report disclosures. 

When I became homeless I didn’t know that if I was not on Centrelink for 26 consecutive weeks I lost my right to access homeless services.  I lost my right to access superannuation even though I am in severe hardship.  I contacted politicians and today believe that I was vilification given my rights were not upheld under the Australian Constitution which had far reaching implications.  I had no shelter and no income.  I couldn’t get a basic income or emergency payment as I was outside of the system.  I contacted politicians received confusing letters transferring responsibility to others, others signing letters, referrals and no outcome at all or no response.  The latter was concerning as I recall politicians always responded. Today they don’t and I wondered if it was because I was not deemed important or an industry representative– so status as access.

I contacted the homeless sector, spoke up at conferences, but not one approached me to offer help or advice.  I was not informed that I would not be able to access the sector without Centrelink which meant I kept bumping up against more walls.  If I hadn’t already been through this silent treatment it happened again. There was no compassion.  No pathway. No help as again my life had no value whatsoever.  People just did their job and went home to their warm bed.  The same issue I confronted with Centrelink and the privatised job provider system was evident again in the homelessness sector.  Privatised companies making money out of those in desperate need of help.  The homeless I spoke to and interviewed for radio told me that the rooming houses were charging $250 per week (same amount as Newstart allowance, welfare) so no money for food or anything over and above. Another was begging made $7 in 7 hours.  Another was having a liver transplant and had been discharged from hospital in the awareness of homeless status. I’ve been told by a nurse that psychiatric or mental health cases are discharged onto the streets.  Very concerning.  Another complaint was private belongings stolen in homeless accommodation and no respect by those running the accommodation. Another spoke of police brutality towards a homeless woman. Another spoke of rape and sexual issues another mentioned paedophilia.  A young woman’s mother died and she was rendered homeless.  A young man couldn’t get work became homeless and had a drone monitor him he stated. He had been to jail as a man was rude to him and he had a fight. He was giving up on the system, it was very sad.  I met a lovely older man who was sick and couldn’t afford food. Another was on drugs as his son had died and he needed to cope.  So many stories, tragedies, no support, stigmatisation and the list goes on.  Until you walk in the shoes of a person experiencing homelessness, you cannot know the reality and the human rights abuses.  To not give a person shelter when clearly there is plenty of money is contempt for those in hardship as they are not economically viable. We witnessed billions coming from somewhere for those rendered homeless in the fires (although some reports say the money wasn’t distributed), in the coronavirus situation billions are being made available. So it sends the signal that homelessness could have ended for 116,000 people but the decision was not made based on the value of housing a homeless person compared to a project that brings in economic dividends. Profit over people is the old adage.  Materialism over humanity. We can probably find many dichotomies to highlight the problem.

An Australian Bill of Rights

An Australian Bill of Rights is essential as vulnerable people cannot stand up for themselves, they don’t have the education, the money or the status to be treated as equals and with dignity.  Many don’t vote as they know there is no advocacy for them even though they are citizens.  Some call them useless eaters as they are not valued in a technocratic world where access is about income.  The cashless card issue means that people can’t beg for money or purchase without being traced to retain privacy, so they are not, in my view, stalked.  I regard surveillance without any violence issue or threat as a form of stalking.  I’ve been through the most difficult situations were my wellbeing was ignored and when I had cancer and suicidal no-one cared at all.  I came to experience a mindsets that were detached and disconnected.  There was no empathy and it raised alarm in myself as I saw those with this type of disposition as dangerous.  I felt it as a duty to not remain quiet, but when I did speak up I put myself in harm’s way as those in powerful positions want me to be silent. So for people like myself An Australian Bill of Rights could have removed all the pain and suffering I went through as it set the high bar of an Australian standard enforced by just laws.  Over a decade of seeking a fair resolution to never even receive an apology.  The refusal to hold people to account means a Bill of Rights would have the power to ensure the public are not used and abused.  To see that this bill was dumped tells me the reality I face in respect of my human rights being protected.  What does the International Civil and Political Covenants mean if basic rights are not valued?  What about the Economic Cultural and Social rights Covenant? What about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The Equal Opportunity Act or the Australian Human Rights Commission? 

Do we just abandon what every soldier fought for, what we have all worked for and identified with?  Do we just go with the money and leave human rights and ethics at the door.  Who do we want to become? Do your values and actions matter?  Absolutely they do. 

My hope is that MP Andrew Wilkie, the former Office of National Assessment Intelligence officer turned whistle blower re-submits this Australian Bill of Rights and I would ask him to NEVER GIVE UP.  As those of us homeless without income and left utterly without any real redress or power they need to have protections in a world increasingly disconnecting through technology, rewiring the neural networks in the brain (STEM, computers), losing empathy, losing community and a sense of responsibility (even to protect) for each other, increasingly self-interested, rewarding greed not kindness and moving towards this Brave New World that desires full spectrum dominance.

I believe I experienced this Brave New World ahead of others.  I did communicate it in another report to government and clearly that was not received in a democratic mode of respect or at the very minimum, problem solving. It is not a world I have voted for and I will not be living in this world. My world will be one of peace, love, kindness, respect and unity.  My world will encourage every person to live to their highest expression, to live out a life based on what they feel called (or inspired) to do and where we see ourselves in each other and know what we do to another returns to the self.  That life has a natural justice and as we harm others we harm ourselves.  This world is about higher truths, higher values and integrity where we no longer need a Bill of Rights but automatically we accord rights as we value everyone equally.  That is how I live today.

MP Andrew Wilkie is an extraordinary politician.  He introduced an Australian Bill of Rights into the Australian Parliament in 16 September 2019.  This bill accords a clear Bill of Rights to all Australians.  It will assist in ensuring we treat each other with respect and equality and retain our democracy. 

Sadly this bill is one of 16 bills NOT PASSED.

In this blog I have shared from my heart all the reasons why a legally enshrined Australian Bill of Rights is critical for public safety.  It will save lives and stop abuses.  That is my deepest wish. I send this wish out like a ‘forget me not’, I blow my words like seeds and pray that they take root in the heart of another soul who shares my deepest wish, then they blow their words as wishes and another plants a seed.  In the end we have a garden, a forest and a renewable earth.  Join with me in wishing this into reality.

Thank you for reading.  I am grateful.  May it serve others.

NOTE:

My websites and blogs have emerged from my questions and visions for a better world as I seek to explore the barriers to peace in our world. May our happy destiny be unavoidable.

www.worldpeacefull.com
http://ha.worldpeacefull.com
https://biz.worldpeacefull.com

http://wpas.worldpeacefull.com
https://pftw.worldpeacefull.com
http://blog.worldpeacefull.com
http://aus.worldpeacefull.com
http://happy.worldpeacefull.com

SAS soldier Braden Chapman speaks out about War Crimes

The article below is from the ABC and discusses Australian SAS war crimes in Afghanistan. War is not a game, real people die. No-one thinks deeply about the real suffering for families of each death, how terror impacts communities and the reality that violence cannot bring peace no matter how you dress it up. Only peace brings peace.

All violence has the same root, powerlessness. The destruction of war or violence deepens powerlessness which expands violence. It is a formula that has never been about peace, it has always been endless war as men believe force works. War is an imbalance with our true nature.

Immediately looking at the story below I contemplate the Australian Federal Police raids on the ABC. The person of interest was David McBride, an SAS officer who was raising concerns about military abuses and as a lawyer investigating humanitarian law.

Refer YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXWoKgKyudk
Refer YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNp7pHbZ0HE

This issue is a murky one in the sense that where is the line drawn in respect of lawful killing. I always feel uneasy with the words ‘lawful killing’ contrasted to the situation when civilians are arrested and jailed if they commit murder. Yet in the military setting they have safeguards as they are in the business of killing. They use buzz words such as national security, defending democracy, ridding the war of terrorism when it is evident through important whistle-blowers that the wars are not about defence but oil interests. It is evident that there is a revolving door into government by commercial interests who are making money out of disasters, a term coined ‘disaster capitalism’. Disaster capitalism makes clear that defence contractors are paid in one day what a regular soldier makes in one week and do not have government oversight at all. The large military industrial complex is embedded in government as contractors alongside government employees with high level secret clearances. This is called the ‘deep state’.

My heart goes to the Afghan citizens who have experienced decades of heart wrenching abuse, who are the poorest people on the planet and who have suffered like no other with no outpouring of compassion for their plight. They have experienced their families murdered, Taliban oppression, harassment and murder of women who break (in their eyes) sharia law, they witness their country invaded, ransacked, polluted with depleted uranium and turned to rubble with no legal consequence. They have been so hungry that they eat grass and dirt. The perpetuated violence was the continuance of the cold war orchestrated by elements in the United States attempting to create another Vietnam for Russia. The CIA paid mercenaries (extremists) to come in to Afghanistan and fight the Russians. The violent war lords had no allegiance other than to money were ruthless in their violation of human rights, executions and exploitation. This country which was once a peaceful country where families were incredibly close, poetry and music was their entertainment as they survived the harshest winters and invaders to become a hardy people. Their innocence was shattered.

I recall Donald Rumsfeld regarding Afghanistan as not a good target as it was a pile of rocks. He wanted more spectacular targets to feel he was fighting a real war and could test out weaponry. Thus, we are not talking responsible leadership focused on the noble vision of securing peace and security, but rather an cold and calculated interest in perpetuating violence without any regard for civilians using the name of national security which is today code for commercial interests who have co-opted the US government through donations or political status. It was Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector in Iraq who stated the US was engaged in an illegitimate war of aggression. The same applied to Afghanistan. He was critical of John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister who he regarded as turning Australian into the 51st State of the US. He advised for us to take down the Australian flag and hoist up the US flag. Thus, Australian military activities in Afghanistan are under the command of the US and the real issue is under humanitarian law how are civilians (unarmed) protected.
Refer my recordings of Scott Ritter at the University of Melbourne: https://www.worldpeacefull.com/peace-journalism/

This link is how a few US Generals viewed the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/04/donald-rumsfeld-iraq-war

The Australian government followed US policy and entered Afghanistan to fight ‘terrorism’. The close ‘oil’ relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal family and the revelations about the Clinton Foundation and Isis funded by the Saudi’s, suggests the interests having nothing to do with the public interest but are commercial profiting from conflict. The fact that the Saudi’s funded the US invasion of Afghanistan matching dollar for dollar (see Charlie Wilson’s war) reveals foreign interference and collaboration with other agenda’s playing out. The US nationally promoted the cold war fight with Russia and ironically the Taliban went to Texas to meet with Unocol to construct a gas pipeline. The profits from the deal between oil barons, the US government and the Taliban provided material aid to an extremist regime (created by the war with Russia) that violated human rights justified by extreme Islam. The Taliban hung people in Kabul stadium, religious police raids, oppressed and stoned women to death and applied harsh punishments for anyone violating Sharia law.

Ref https://www.counterpunch.org/2002/01/10/bush-enron-unocal-and-the-taliban/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

The is the “pink elephant” in the room where all look the other way, it is the profit that matters not the human rights of people. Torture emerges from the same indifference to humanity that is profiled in the psychopath. I always remember Bill Clinton’s announcement of decoupling of human rights from trade (as a red flag) and later the US exited the UN Human Rights Council as a statement of ‘who they have become’. That should alarm the Australian government given the Australian people’s values and what we regard as the very basis of democratic principles and the rule of law. This demonstrates a culture of violent abuse that is called business as usual, as it is profit that matters not human life. Does this make America great? I am sure Abraham Lincoln would turn in his grave as life, liberty and happiness is distorted for the benefit of the few not the many.

Afghanistan is the poorest country on earth and was used for a proxy war benefiting commercial interests without any regard for civilians. There has been no compassion for these long suffering people who survived against the odds. They would see the great evil in the West as their country was polluted with depleted uranium, villages bombed, civilians addicted to heroin, women turning to prostitution and an illegal child trafficking trade. They are a beautiful and kind people, very humble and simple who had no defence against forces greedily seeking their resources and not standing in nobility to protect an abused people. The greed is a core issue.

The most important issue in this sad tale is the US shadow government and deep state has to be put on the global agenda and referred to the International Criminal Court for ‘crimes against humanity’. These are unaccountable powerful organisations, corporations and non profits engaged in illegal endless wars, the drug trade, guns and trafficking. Kevin Shipp (former CIA) stated Hillary Clinton heads up ‘a criminal cartel’ in Washington D.C.. This must be investigated in an international court of law. Otherwise the dark intelligence war becomes one of assassinations to silence whistle-blowers furthering the targeted killing of civilians rather than justice. Refer https://www.fortheloveoffreedom.net/

Refer https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/julian-assange-clinton-foundation-isis-same-money-saudi-arabia-qatar-funding-a7397211.html

As a peacemaker it is vital that the truth comes out if peace is what we truly desire for our children and grandchildren. Yes, it can be scary as those who feel threatened will use legal or bullying means to silence others. The rule of law by neutral judges holding the real scales of justice must be the nonviolent pathway that leads to peace and reconciliation as accountability is central to trust in government. This has to be done as the violence is ‘not who we are’ as we become awakened to the fact that we live in a global village where not only are we each others keepers (responsible for each other) but to know ‘what you do to another returns to the self’ (universal law). For those who believe they are fighting for a higher power I can assure you that power is love as truth. Denial and powerlessness stays silent in the shadows. True power is the love that shines the light on the darkest corner, for even those languishing in ignorance and hatred are calling for the light of change. Karma can only be removed by unconditional love. So there is a way out of darkness.

My last point is I want my country to become sovereign and protect the civilians interests not follow the unofficial licence to abuse and murder civilians in illegitimate wars that do not benefit our country. May those in positions of power find the wisdom to Advance Australia fair for the highest good of all. Australia could position itself as a mediators not accomplice in crimes against the people. What stops them bringing this behaviour to Australian citizens when oppression orders a crack down and criminalises dissent? We must all remain vigilant to the wolf in sheep’s clothing or the smiling assassin.

It is the truth that sets us free. ‘us’ has two meanings.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/former-australian-sas-soldier-braden-chapman-speaks-out-about-unlawful-killings-and-war-crimes-in-afghanistan/ar-BB11gHcQ?ocid=spartandhp

 

Special Air Service Regiment sandy berets © Commonwealth of Australia Special Air Service Regiment sandy berets They are Australia’s elite special forces, the lethal operatives of the Special Air Service Regiment, the SAS.

For years, the secrets about what they did in the valleys, fields and mud villages of Afghanistan have remained hidden.

Until now. 

Former SAS operative Braden Chapman first deployed to Afghanistan in 2012, when the brutal conflict there was in its 11th year.

With a major inquiry soon to report on suspected war crimes, Chapman, who was on many covert missions, has decided to speak out about what he saw.

He said he witnessed soldiers in SAS patrols commit executions in cold blood.

A Four Corners investigation has uncovered a culture of impunity and cover-up within the SAS.

“When you’re back at the unit, people would make jokes about the size of the rug that they’ve swept everything under, and that one day it’ll all come out and people are going to be thrown in jail for murder or anything else that they’ve done,” Chapman said.

Attached to 3 Squadron SAS as a signals intelligence officer, Chapman’s mission was to track Taliban targets.

He said there was a “buzz of elitism” being part of the SAS.

“It is the best thing you could do for your career to go to that unit, especially when you’re a lower rank and you’re actually gonna get to do a lot of hands-on stuff.” 

But he was soon shocked at the behaviour of some of his comrades. 

“They’re going to look back and see that we were the guys in there murdering people, and invading, and not there to do something that is honourable,” he said.

‘Almost like target practice’

In May 2012, Chapman was on patrol with 3 Squadron SAS in a village.

The unit was moving towards a target building, when they saw an Afghan man leave the area.

“When we got to within maybe 20 to 30 metres away and he saw us, he quickly grabbed his phone from his pocket and he threw it. And at that stage he stopped. He put his hands up just like that, then just stood there,” Chapman said.

“As we got closer to him, the soldier then just fired and hit him twice in the chest and then shot him through the head as he walked past him.”

Chapman said the soldier was an experienced member of 3 Squadron SAS.

“I was only 5 to 10 metres behind him at the time,” he said.

“The visual image to me was, the guy had his hands up and then it was almost like target practice for that soldier.”

Chapman was ordered to go through the dead Afghan man’s pockets.

Another Australian patrol with an assault dog then arrived at the scene.

3 Squadron SAS soldiers during deployment in Afghanistan in 2012.

“It [the dog] actually came and started chewing on the head of the man who’d been shot. And I remember looking to the dog handler and saying, ‘Can you get this thing away from it,’ because it was pretty gruesome,” Chapman said.

“And he’s just like, ‘Oh, let him have a taste.'”

Chapman said the killing by his fellow SAS patrol member disturbed him greatly.

“In my books, it’s murder.”

Just days later the helmet camera of another SAS operator captured members of 3 Squadron discussing the soldier who had killed the Afghan man with his hands up. 

“F***ing bullshit. Not happy with it.”

“[The soldier is] a brother, but, ‘Bash who I want. Shoot at whoever. Kill a kid. Oh well, just keep shooting c***s.'”

The soldier who shot the man is still serving in the special forces.

‘Straight-up execution’

During the same month, a 3 Squadron SAS patrol was searching for an insurgent bombmaker when another unlawful killing took place.

The patrol’s dog handler and another SAS soldier, who Four Corners has called Soldier C, were headed towards a mud compound when a young Afghan man in his 20s was spotted in a wheat field by one of the Black Hawk helicopters ahead.

What happened next was captured on a helmet camera. 

Soldier C aims his assault rifle at the Afghan man.

The man is cowering on the ground and appears to only have a set of red prayer beads in his right hand.

Soldier C turns to the dog handler and asks: “You want me to drop this c***?”

The dog handler tells him to ask the patrol commander.

Soldier C then asks the same question twice to the patrol commander, whose response is inaudible on the video.

Within seconds, Soldier C squeezes the trigger and the bullet tears into the Afghan man on the ground.

The Australian shoots him twice more and then walks off.

Chapman was not aware of this shooting until Four Corners showed him the video, but knows the identity of the soldiers involved.

“He’s asked someone of a superior rank what he should do. But it comes down to the soldier pulling the trigger. It’s a straight-up execution.”

The killing of the civilian, identified as Dad Mohammad, was later investigated by the Australian Defence Force (ADF), after Afghan tribal elders complained.

Soldier C told ADF investigators he had killed the Afghan man because he had been seen with a radio.

He also said he shot the young man from 15 to 20 metres away, in self-defence.

But the video shows he was fewer than two metres away while the man was lying on the ground.

Dad Mohammad's father Abdul Malik said his son had face wounds. © ABC / Four Corners Dad Mohammad’s father Abdul Malik said his son had face wounds. The ADF investigators concluded that Dad Mohammad was lawfully killed because he posed a direct threat to the Australians.

Four Corners can reveal that Soldier C is still serving in the special forces.

As part of a major inquiry into allegations of war crimes within the special forces in Afghanistan, the Inspector-General of the ADF is investigating whether it was common practice to plant radios on bodies.

Chapman said throughout his deployment, there was systematic use of planted weapons and radios to justify killings.

“I did see plenty that were planted,” the former soldier said.

“They definitely got them off somebody else and walked over and sat it next to a body.”

Chapman said weapons were also planted on dead Afghans.

“Other members of my troop back in Australia, they did use to joke about how the same serial number [of a gun] was in every single photo of a dead Afghani,” he said.

“So, you know, inferring that somebody was planting these AK-47s.”

‘Someone’s lied giving evidence’

Another incident that still haunts Braden Chapman involved the death of an elderly Afghan man, Haji Sardar, during a raid on the village of Sarkhume in mid-March 2012.

Chapman is the only Australian witness to speak publicly about what happened to Haji Sardar.

He said Haji Sardar was initially shot in the leg by the SAS-led patrol.

An Australian medic helped patch up the wound, which was not life-threatening.

A senior SAS soldier then took the injured man away.

“Some time later he came back and our medic asked him, ‘What happened, where is he?’ Because he’d worked on him, he [the medic] considered him his patient. And then he [the soldier] just…shook his head and said, ‘He didn’t make it.'”

Chapman said the SAS medic was upset, because he believed the man had been killed.

“He was just saying that the man, he was fine. There was no way he would have died, and he knew that the soldier had killed him,” he said.

After complaints by villagers, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) found Haji Sardar had been beaten to death by an Australian soldier.

“Haji Sardar was first injured and then taken away for investigation and died as a result of torture,” said AIHRC chairwoman Shaharzad Akbar.

AIHRC chairwoman Shaharzad Akbar and Haji Sardar after he was killed.

Australian Defence Force investigators later determined that Haji Sardar had been carrying a weapon and that his killing was lawful.

AIHRC was told by villagers that Haji Sardar was an unarmed civilian.

“I’d say that someone’s lied giving evidence because there’s no way that you can justify an execution,” Chapman said.

Four Corners has obtained hours of footage shot by members of 3 Squadron SAS during the unit’s 2012 rotation through Afghanistan.

It shows the destruction of buildings, motorbikes and the shooting of dogs.

“We try and say that we’re there to help and the Taliban are bad. But if we go in and we start destroying infrastructure or destroying their private vehicles and burning down their homes it doesn’t really send the right message,” Chapman said.

“They’re going to run straight back to the Taliban, who usually are not doing that.”

Potential for war crimes charges

Braden Chapman’s squadron and its time in Afghanistan in 2012 are of key interest to the Inspector-General’s investigation.

Glenn Kolomeitz, a former special operations lawyer for the ADF in Afghanistan, said the special forces were highly trained in the rules of war.

“These guys were given training throughout their work,” he said.

“[There’s] no excuse in terms of the training as provided and the understanding, absolutely.”

Mr Kolomeitz said he believed there was potential for charges to be laid under the war crime murder provisions of the Commonwealth criminal code.

“We have obligations at international law, domestic law, and indeed moral obligations, to not ignore these sorts of allegations,” he said.

3 Squadron SAS successfully captured many targets during its deployment in 2012.

Chapman said the unlawful killings he witnessed may constitute war crimes, and he believes the soldiers responsible deserve to go to jail.

“I just want the truth to come out, and people who did commit crimes to be held accountable,” he said.

He said he also believed officers who ran the special forces should wear some of the blame.

“It is a culture issue as well, and these incidents that are happening would filter through to them. They know what’s going on over there,” he said.

Chapman said a strict code of silence was observed by members of the regiment.

He said he learned this early on in his deployment when talking with one of the more experienced operators.

“He said to me, ‘I hope you’re ready and prepared for this deployment because you need to make sure that you’re OK with me putting a gun to someone’s head and pulling the trigger. Because I don’t want to read about it in 10 or so years.'”

Chapman said that soldier was the one who later dragged the wounded Haji Sardar away before he was found allegedly beaten to death.

For Chapman, speaking out is his chance to atone for staying silent about what he witnessed in Afghanistan.

He believes even if he had made a complaint at the time, it would have gone “nowhere”.

“I didn’t break any rules of engagement,” he said.

“But I feel now that even if it had ruined my career back then, I probably should have made that complaint.

“It’s definitely affected me. You try to look back at your career, try and be proud of it, but then you’ve got all these incidents. You see yourself as part of the bad guys.”

Defence did not answer Four Corners’ questions about particular incidents involving the killing of Afghans.

In a statement, it said the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force was investigating “whether there is any substance to rumour and allegations” about possible war crimes committed by Australian special forces in Afghanistan.

It said the inquiry was ongoing. 

MP Andrew Wilkie Explains the Illegal Extradition of Julian Assange

In the public interest.

Thank goodness we have one politician who speaks truth to power. Andrew Wilkie MP is a former Office of National Assessment analyst (intelligence). He also was a whistleblower in respect of the illegal war in Iraq.

It is important that truth comes out. Silence and apathy is what allows injustice to occur.

Julian Assange Awakens Secrecy as Repugnant to Freedom

This is an article from the Australian ABC regarding Julian Assange, lawyers, breach of privacy and surveillance.  the article focuses on the recording of Geoffrey Robertson QC a famous Australian barrister, well known by those of us over 40 for the ABC program ‘Hypothetical’.  Geoffrey Robertson demonstrated justice as he challenged influential Australians to respond to controversial issues, scenarios indicating how they would handle a difficult problem. He demonstrated Justice and Inquiry. 

He is a human rights lawyer and his lawyer-client privilege was breached due to powerful interests not driven by Justice but power. 

I felt inspired to give J F Kennedy a voice in this blog which drives to the heart of this problem.  

Transcript: https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-newspaper-publishers-association-19610427

The keystone message of Kennedy is as follows:

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

The important question for US lawmakers and politicians is – Can you face high crimes and misdemeanours and correct mistakes rather than criminalise the messenger?   Wikipedia provides insight into the meaning:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

When you deeply contemplate the journey of Julian Assange you realise he is a light on the hill as he reminds the US of its true purpose as they have lost their way.  He is a beacon who not only revealed US secrets but awakened the world to what is called the ‘dark side’ of surveillance and political corruption. Justice is not a business deal it is about the truth that sets all free.

Recently I wondered about him. I sent light and protection to him and that he is safe as the US seek to jail him for revealing what is on ‘a need to know basis’. 

When you have experienced inequality before the law, illegal surveillance, privacy breaches and corruption your Cinderella world view dissolves as you become dis-illusioned.  That is, the illusion falls from your eyes and you see clearly. 2020 (vision) is about clear seeing. Until you walk in Julian’s shoes you cannot know the sacrifice he made in the public interest, albeit global interest. We are learning about how power operates as distinct to Justice. The lengths people will go to, to win and pervert the course of  justice. The lack of ethics, integrity and manipulation of the rule of law is under the spotlight. 

It is noteworthy that those persons exposed of crimes and/or breaches to the Constitution are not arrested but the whistle-blowers are pursued as if criminals and rights to Justice undermined. The Brave New World is a teacher, we are being given glimpses into this possible future and every person is choosing. This is the real universal vote. Complacency or democracy?

The surveillance state is increasingly being privatised as contractors are paid by national intelligence agencies accessing secrets themselves.  Secrets (security) are leverage.  Imagine how wide spread is espionage as intelligence becomes private security (business) becomes intelligence in the revolving door of greed where there is always a back door to breach privacy and make money from vulnerability.  Greed is the key issue arising out of a desire to live like the US, yet, must we rob Peter to pay Paul. Debt is another leverage point.

Some key quotes from the ABC article below are worthy of contemplation.

“It’s important that clients can speak frankly and freely in a confidential space with their lawyers in order to be able to protect themselves and ensure that they have the best possible legal strategy and that the other side does not have advance notice of it,” Robinson said.

Referring to a Spanish allegation that the US Government had advance notice of legal conversations in the embassy, she said: “That is … a huge and a serious breach of [Assange’s] right to a defence and a serious breach of his fair trial rights”.

“I wasn’t surprised at all. It’s an occupational hazard for human rights lawyers. You’re bugged, you’re followed by secret police, you’re spied upon,” said Robertson, one of Australia and the UK’s most respected human rights barristers for almost 50 years.

The extradition hearing comes amid a flurry of activity related to Assange: on Friday his legal team also confirmed they will try to seek asylum for the WikiLeaks boss in France, and on Thursday an English court heard that Assange was offered a US presidential pardon if he agreed to say that Russia was not involved in a 2016 leak of Democratic Party emails.

When the ABC asked questions of the US embassy in Canberra, it referred questions to the US justice department, which did not respond by deadline.

The ABC also sent questions to the CIA and the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Neither responded by deadline.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/julian-assange-and-his-australian-lawyers-were-secretly-recorded-in-ecuadors-london-embassy/ar-BB10hrG3?ocid=spartandhp

Julian Assange and his Australian lawyers were secretly recorded in Ecuador’s London embassy

Dylan Welch, Suzanne Dredge and Clare Blumer 2 hrs ago

WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange leaves Westminster Magistrates Court in London, Britain January 13, 2020.

© REUTERS/Henry Nicholls WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange leaves Westminster Magistrates Court in London, Britain January 13, 2020. Barrister Geoffrey Robertson’s shuffles into the entrance to Ecuador’s embassy in London, a camera recording the sound of his shoes echoing on the hard tiles.

It’s just after 7:00pm on January 12, 2018.

The camera rolls as Robertson stops at the front door, unbuttons his overcoat and removes his cap.

Once inside the embassy, other cameras follow him as he’s ushered into a meeting room, where the storied Queen’s Counsel is offered a cup of tea.

After a few minutes, he is greeted by the embassy’s most famous resident, Julian Assange.

The camera continues to roll, recording every word of the confidential legal conversation which follows.

While this may be typical surveillance at a secure diplomatic property, what Robertson did not know was he and a handful of other lawyers, were allegedly being targeted in a remarkable and deeply illegal surveillance operation possibly run at the request of the US Government.

Pictures: The case of Julian Assange (Showbizz Daily)

And recordings such as Robertson’s visit are at the heart of concerns about the surveillance: privileged legal conversations between lawyer and client in a diplomatic residence were recorded and, later, accessed from IP addresses in the United States and Ecuador.

Robertson was only one of at least three Australian lawyers and more than two dozen other legal advisers from around the world that were caught up in the surveillance operation.

Long-time WikiLeaks adviser Jennifer Robinson was one of the other Australian lawyers caught in the spying operation.

“It’s important that clients can speak frankly and freely in a confidential space with their lawyers in order to be able to protect themselves and ensure that they have the best possible legal strategy and that the other side does not have advance notice of it,” Robinson said.

Referring to a Spanish allegation that the US Government had advance notice of legal conversations in the embassy, she said: “That is … a huge and a serious breach of [Assange’s] right to a defence and a serious breach of his fair trial rights”.

On Monday evening (Sydney time), Assange will face an extradition hearing relating to US criminal charges against him for his role in the WikiLeaks releases of classified US Government material.

The extradition hearing comes amid a flurry of activity related to Assange: on Friday his legal team also confirmed they will try to seek asylum for the WikiLeaks boss in France, and on Thursday an English court heard that Assange was offered a US presidential pardon if he agreed to say that Russia was not involved in a 2016 leak of Democratic Party emails.

The offer of a pardon was allegedly made by the US congressman Dana Rohrabacher when he visited Assange in the embassy in August 2017. Rohrabacher has denied he was making the offer on behalf of Donald Trump.

‘It’s an occupational hazard for human rights lawyers’

The surveillance was uncovered via a very public investigation into the Spanish company contracted by the Ecuadorian Government to provide security at the embassy, UC Global.

WikiLeaks Spanish lawyer, Aitor Martinez, told the ABC the surveillance came to light after Assange was arrested, when former UC Global employees provided a large file of material.

“This consisted of recordings from cameras installed in the embassy and hidden microphones; recordings made with secret microphones placed inside the embassy; hundreds of secret copies of the passports of Mr Assange’s visitors; multiple emails exchanged between the company owner and the employees,” Martinez said.

The recording of lawyers and legal conversations was not accidental, according to the Spanish criminal case, which is now investigating UC Global and its owner, former Spanish Navy marine David Morales.

“David Morales was justifying himself by saying that he had been expressly asked for this information, sometimes referring to ‘the Americans’,” a UC Global employee turned prosecution witness said.

“He sent on several occasions — via email, by phone and verbally — some lists of targets in which we had to pay special attention … they were mainly Mr Assange’s lawyers.”

“I wasn’t surprised at all. It’s an occupational hazard for human rights lawyers. You’re bugged, you’re followed by secret police, you’re spied upon,” said Robertson, one of Australia and the UK’s most respected human rights barristers for almost 50 years.

Robinson — also an Australian citizen — was spied on while providing confidential legal advice to Assange.

“It is incredibly troubling that our secret and privileged legal conversations with Julian Assange were recorded and apparently handed to US authorities,” she told the ABC.

“It is one of the most fundamental principles of protecting attorney-client relationships that we are able to have confidential and private meetings, to discuss legal strategy.”

The concerns about illegal monitoring of confidential legal discussions may become part of his defence, with his lawyers expected to argue that the espionage has denied Assange his basic legal rights.

Foreign Minister Marise Payne did not respond to ABC questions about the Spanish case. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) also declined to discuss it, only noting that it had previously sought assurances that Assange would be treated appropriately under UK law.

“The Australian Government cannot intervene in any extradition request for Mr Assange, which is a matter for the UK authorities,” a DFAT spokeswoman said.

Robinson said that she believed Canberra had not done enough to protect Assange, an Australian citizen.

“This is a case in which an Australian citizen is facing 175 years in prison in the United States for the same publication for which he won a Sydney Peace Prize and the Walkley award for the most outstanding contribution to journalism,” she said, referring to WikiLeaks’ publication in 2010 and 2011 of confidential US documents that revealed, among other things, war crimes and illegal spying on world leaders.

“His Australian lawyers — all of us Australian citizens — have [also] had our rights as lawyers and our ability to give him a proper defence superseded by the US and potentially the UK Government.

“This is something that the Australian Government ought to be taking very seriously and ought to be raising both with the UK and with the United States. It is time the Australian Government stands up for this Australian citizen and stops his extradition.”

The file

The ABC has obtained hundreds of internal UC Global documents, videos, audio files and photos tendered in the Spanish case, which commenced in April last year days after Spanish newspaper El Pais published videos and audio of Assange and guests being spied on in the embassy.

The files reveal the remarkable and expanding secret surveillance targeting the WikiLeaks boss and his guests.

In an email from September 2017, Morales ordered UC Global staff to find out what the walls around Assange’s bedroom were made of, and to photograph the embassy’s rooms and its furniture.

Then in December, UC Global updated the embassy’s camera system, installing audio-capable cameras.

A month later, and under instructions from Morales, they installed a listening device in the false base of the meeting room’s fire extinguisher.

They also installed a microphone in the women’s bathroom — a place where Assange would regularly hold sensitive legal meetings.

The case is being investigated by Spain’s federal court, the Audencia Nacional, which is examining whether Morales and UC Global are guilty of breaching both Assange’s privacy and lawyer-client privilege, as well as crimes relating to misappropriation of funds, bribery, and money laundering.

“From 2015 to mid-2018, when UC Global lost the embassy’s security contract, a battery of illegal espionage measures was deployed, with massive interference in the privacy of [Assange], in his communications with his [legal] team, in meetings with his doctors, and in general against everyone close to him,” a criminal complaint filed by Assange’s Spanish lawyers stated.

“In those years the defendants created a sort of ‘Big Brother’ in which all the movements of Mr Assange and the people close to him were monitored.”

The case commenced after a group of Spanish citizens contacted senior WikiLeaks employees and demanded a significant sum of money in return for what they said was voluminous proof of the espionage.

A former UC Global employee — who cannot be identified for legal reasons — also separately approached WikiLeaks, wanting to reveal what they saw as the illegal behaviour of their former company.

WikiLeaks referred the case to Spanish courts, who launched an investigation and arrested Morales. He was later released on bail.

“This spying did not only affect Mr Assange’s lawyers, it also affected all of his visitors, including journalists,” Martinez said.

“It got to the point where, during a visit to Mr Assange, the head of Ecuador’s intelligence service [Rommy Vallejo, on December 21, 2017] was also spied on,” Martinez added.

“In the meeting between Mr Vallejo and Mr Assange the possible release [from the embassy] of Mr Assange in a few days later was discussed.”

Within hours of that secret meeting, which was known to only a few people, the US Ambassador to Ecuador complained to Ecuadorian authorities, and the next day the US issued an international arrest warrant for Assange, Martinez said.

“That leads us to believe that the conversation was urgently sent to the US authorities and that they urgently issued the international arrest warrant the next day,” he said.

Martinez was himself spied on while having legal meetings with Assange at the embassy.

“Mr Assange began to suspect that he was being spied upon … so he asked us to hold the most sensitive meetings in the women’s toilet at the back of the building,” Martinez recalled.

“We honestly thought it was an exaggerated step to hold our legal meetings in the women’s toilet, where he would even open the water tap to avoid anyone listening.

“It was interesting to find out that Mr Assange was, in fact, correct: the material before the court proves that UC Global knew the meetings were held inside the women’s toilet, as they proceeded to install an additional microphone [there].”

‘It goes to the heart of client-lawyer privilege’

While the case made headlines in Europe and the UK, there has been little to no discussion here about what it means for the Australian citizens and lawyers caught up in the alleged espionage operation.

The Law Council of Australia told the ABC the alleged surveillance operation was “deeply disturbing”.

“The allegations that Julian Assange’s conversations with his lawyer were being recorded are really serious,” the council’s president, Pauline Wright said.

“If you can’t have that full, frank discussion without fear that that’s being recorded and potentially released to the authorities … it erodes trust in the whole system.

“It goes to the heart of the client lawyer privilege.”

The file also reveals that Morales’ surveillance project — dubbed Operation Hotel — did not just observe Assange and his guests. Internal UC Global documents reveal staff also stole or illicitly photographed visitors’ belongings.

The file includes photos of passports, mobile phones, computers and other electronic devices owned by dozens of activists, journalists, lawyers and public figures that visited Assange.

The file also reveals a growing desire, on Morales’ part, for ubiquitous surveillance of Assange and his visitors.

Morales directed UC Global to scrutinise particular people visiting Assange, whom he refers to as “el huesped” (the guest).

“We must … create or improve the following profiles (personal data, relationship with the guest, phones, emails, number of visits, et cetera) of these regular visitors or collaborators of the guest,” he said.

He lists nine people, one of whom is Robinson.

“We must do everything to know their data … I want a person completely dedicated to this work, so if you have to hire someone for it, tell me,” Morales said.

“All this must be considered top secret.”

UC Global staff sometimes resisted their boss’s more intrusive requests. In December 2017, Morales allegedly directed an employee to steal the used nappy of a baby who sometimes accompanied his mother when she visited Assange.

The theft was necessary, Morales said, to DNA test faecal matter to establish if the child was Assange’s son.

“I decided to talk to the mother of the child,” the employee said in his statement to the court.

“When we were outside of the embassy, I told her that she must not take the child to the embassy anymore because they planned to steal her baby’s diapers to prove whether he was the son of Julian Assange.”

‘Amigos americanos’

The Spanish criminal complaint states the turbo-charged surveillance operation began after Morales travelled to Las Vegas in 2015 for a security fair. There, he signed a contract with Las Vegas Sands, a company owned by billionaire Trump donor Sheldon Adelson, according to the complaint.

Ostensibly, the contract was to provide security services to Adelson on his mega yacht, the Queen Miri.

But, when Morales returned to Spain, he told UC Global staff they were now “playing in first division”, according to two witness statements tendered in the case.

“[Morales] said he’d gone to the ‘dark side’, referring to himself as a casual collaborator with US authorities, and he said that as a result of this collaboration, ‘The Americans will get us contracts all over the world’,” one witness said in his statement.

Throughout the operation, the employees were repeatedly told by Morales that the surveillance operation was being directed by people he referred to as “amigos Americanos” (American friends).

Concerned about the increasingly illegal behaviour, the UC Global associate pressed Morales on the euphemistic references to “Americans”, demanding to know exactly who they were working for.

According to the statement, Morales replied: “la inteligencia de Estados Unidos” (United States intelligence).

“However, when I asked him who was the particular intelligence person he was meeting to provide them information, Mr Morales ended the conversation and told me that this topic was handled exclusively by him outside the company,” the UC Global associate told prosecutors.

The associate told the court he had repeated and heated discussions with Morales about the operation and who was behind it.

Once such conversation ended with Morales making the gesture of opening his shirt and saying: “I’m a mercenary!”

US action

At first, Morales collected the surveillance footage and delivered it by hand to unknown people in the US.

Later, he asked staff to create a file server and then a secret website to stream the embassy cameras.

A UC Global employee responsible for running the secret website told the Spanish court he noted at least one visitor to the site with an American IP address.

In a Spanish interview, Morales said neither he nor UC Global staff installed any listening devices in the embassy and suggested WikiLeaks had placed the microphones around the embassy.

When the ABC asked questions of the US embassy in Canberra, it referred questions to the US justice department, which did not respond by deadline.

The ABC also sent questions to the CIA and the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Neither responded by deadline.

Foreign Influence in Whitlam Dismissal

in the public interest. The issue here from my perspective is sovereignty and self determination. For me 11/11 is about Australian democracy not the first World War. Although there is a link.

http://www.changingthetimes.net/essays/dismissal.htm The Dismissal

The Dismissal: Why

Gough Whitlam Couldn’t

Simply Say No

 

 

 

A companion paper to Remember, Remember, 

The Eleventh of November, As A Time Of Blood And Death.

by David Atwell

I am quite sure by the time some even finish the end of this paragraph, they may think that I am some crazy left-wing Australian unworthy of breathing their oxygen. Yet, considering some 31 years have passed since the greatest political crisis of Australian history, and having done much academic study since then, I do believe that “It’s Time” to begin, not only a Constitutional analysis of those events back in November 1975, but also ask the fundamental question why the dismissed Australian Prime Minister, who was central to this drama, one Gough Whitlam, simply did not tell the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to basically fornicate off.

For those of you who may not be aware of this infamous act in Australia history, I will spend some time narrating it here. On 11 November 1975, Remembrance Day in Australia took on a whole new meaning. Instead of remembering the ending of the First World War in 1918, Australians had a new thing to remember: the sacking of a democratically elected government, lead by Gough Whitlam, by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr. This act had come about for several reasons, which I will now outline.

The obvious reason for Whitlam’s dismissal, now readily known as simply The Dismissal, was due to the fact that the Opposition in Australia, the Liberal Party and their coalition partners the Country Party, used their numbers in the Senate to defer the Supply Bill. This Supply Bill was the all important annual Budget, which ensured that the government of the day could govern the country, as it paid for everything more or less. Without it the country would soon shut-down as the Federal government would have no money. As a consequence of this, Kerr argued he was given no choice other than dismiss the current government and ensure new general elections. Whether he had to power to do so, without such advice from the Prime Minister of the time, is highly questionable and we will look at this a little later.

There are other reasons for The Dismissal, although it must be stressed that they are of the conspiracy type and little hard evidence exists to prove them. Having said that as the saying goes truth is stranger than fiction, and considering these theories have persisted for over 30 years, combined with the fact that they have become Dismissal folklore, they should be mentioned even if not necessarily accepted. What they often do, however, is orbit Fraser’s desire to become Prime Minister through any means available. Hence if Kerr gains much of the blame, for The Dismissal, Fraser too should accept much of it as well, because of his political expediency in order to become Prime Minister, regardless of the Constitution, and the damage that it received thanks to his political games.

All of the leading conspiracy theories involve, thus, Fraser on the one hand and the American Central Intelligence Agency on the other. Depending upon which exact theory we follow, they always seem to depend upon how much the CIA was actually involved with The Dismissal itself. Mind you it must be noted that it was not as if the Whitlam Government was not involved with the CIA themselves on various matters, nor can it be denied that the Coalition Parties had not had dealings with the CIA either. What a number of the conspiracy supporters point out, though, are three undeniable events which took place leading up to The Dismissal: all involving the CIA.

The first event took place during the cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate between the Whitlam government and the Opposition. Out of nowhere, or so it seemed, the government accused the leader of the Country Party of sharing a house in Canberra with a couple of CIA employees. This was somewhat denied at first, but eventually Doug Anthony, leader of the Country Party, finally admitted to this whilst claiming that it did not prove a thing.

The second instance was far more substantive albeit somewhat connected with the first. When the Whitlam government found itself in trouble over the Loans Affair (which we will look at a bit later) the government launched an attack against the CIA. No one knows, to this day, why Whitlam begun this action, but essentially he demanded from them a list of every employee, agent or otherwise, who was in Australia during the period in question. By treaty, such information was supposed to have been passed on to the Australian government, regardless of party, as a matter of course anyway, but for some reason Whitlam demanded that it all be done in public and the list was to be tabled in Parliament. This list was supposed to be handed to Whitlam on or around 11 November 1975. It never was.

And finally, connected with the CIA agent list business, there was a back channel communiqué made by the CIA to the Australian Secret Intelligence Agency (ASIS) office at the Australian embassy in Washington DC. In no short terms it asked ASIS whether the security arrangements between the two countries had altered and in what direction was Whitlam taking Australia politically. Although it was probably an honest attempt at trying to get an understanding as to what Whitlam was doing, it nevertheless gained the attention of the Head of ASIS who immediately informed Whitlam. Within 24 hours Whitlam had been sacked.

But, regardless of whether or not the conspiracy theorists might be right, at least the legitimate reason why Whitlam was dismissed was the Loans Affairs. These loans all involved one shady character by the name of Khemlani. The Whitlam government wanted to raise a $au4 billion loan to develop the north-west gas and oil fields just in the immediate aftermath of the Yom Kippur War whence OPEC, lead by Saudi Arabia, placed an oil embargo upon the West for its support of Israel during that conflict. The irony is today, the north-west gas and oil fields are one of Australia’s great resources. Whitlam’s mistake, however, was his willingness to use Arab money, as the loan source, instead of the traditional manner of having the loan raised in London or New York.

In doing so, when news got out about the loan, was bad enough, yet the government was able to whether the storm in June-July of 1975. However, it then sealed its fate when, even though Whitlam announced to Parliament that the loans were not going to be sought and that authorisation had be withdrawn to further loan negotiations, two of his government Ministers, one REX Connor and Jim Cairns, decided to continue seeking these loans secretly and thus in total contradiction to what the Prime Minister had told Parliament. Inevitably word got out, from Khemlani himself as a matter of fact, that he had continued to negotiate the loans well after Whitlam had said otherwise. And luckily, or possibly deliberately, for the Opposition, such news arrived just as debate over the Budget had commenced. About three weeks later The Dismissal took place.

Now our first question to raise, in order to explore why Whitlam simply did not tell Kerr to take a hike, is the Constitutional ins-and-outs from which Whitlam was coming from. Essentially Whitlam believed in the Westminster system’s doctrine of Ministerial Advice. Basically it means that the Monarch or their representative – in other words the Governor-General in this case – can only act upon the advice given to them by the Prime Minister or one of the other Ministers of the Crown – in other words Cabinet Ministers. The Monarch may reject this advice, however, but they may not initiate independent action themselves nor may they gain advice from any other source other than those already mentioned above.

In Australia, prior to The Dismissal, it was generally believed that this doctrine of Ministerial Advice had been written into the Constitution under the following Sections:

 

62. There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

63. The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

 

Do note that the term Federal Executive Council usually applies to the senior members of Cabinet: in other words the Prime Minister, the Deputy PM, and one or two other Ministers of State.

The supporters of Kerr, however, always point towards Section 2 (as well as Section 64 Para i & ii above) in justifying his actions insofar as the Governor-General has the right to hire and fire:

 

2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

 

But this Section cannot be taken alone, nor Section 64 for that matter, when dealing with such issues, because Section 67 very clearly defines the situation:

 

67. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the appointment and removal of all other officers of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall be vested in the Governor-General in Council, unless the appointment is delegated by the Governor-General in Council or by a law of the Commonwealth to some other authority.

 

 

In other words the Constitution states that the Governor-General can appoint and dismiss, but can only do such things when the Governor-General is advised to do so by members of the Federal Executive Council. It goes without saying that this was never the case in November 1975.

So essentially Whitlam was taken by surprise on that fateful morning as he never expected whatsoever to be ambushed by his dismissal.

And now finally we get to explore the alternate history part of this essay. It is well known that it took some 2 hours before Whitlam finally made a public appearance with some eloquence, tempered with great passion, in giving his famous speech on the steps of Parliament, proclaiming in part:

 

Well may we say ‘God Save the Queen’, because nothing will save the Governor-General.

 

These are some fighting words, but Whitlam never really made a fight of it: not at least in the more traditional sense of leading a revolution against the Governor-General (and the Monarch) akin to what our American cousins did some 200 years prior to 1975. In many respects, considering the great anger of the crowd in Canberra that day, it would not have been hard for Whitlam to have done that. Certainly the large student population would have likely joined such a revolution as would have the large trade union population. And, as events would unfold throughout the rest of November and early December, such a revolution could have taken place judging by the tens of thousands of protesters who turned out at the various Labor Party political rallies running up to the election in December 1975.

 

The answer to this question probably lies in two parts. And it was all because of Whitlam in many respects. At this point in time we should probably look at the man himself in question albeit briefly. To begin with he was a World War II veteran. In fact he served in the Royal Australian Air Force. Furthermore, he was also a lawyer for many years before being elected to Federal Parliament. As a consequence, he had served in Parliament for many years. He was also, what was called back then, a social democrat – not a revolutionary socialist. And finally, after Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War, and the wholehearted unpopularity which it had gained by early 1972, wherein millions of Australians marched everywhere against that war, all convinced Whitlam that war achieved nothing but blood and death.

So here we are, in November 1975, with Australia on the very edge of civil war. Regardless of the moment, Whitlam would have known for certain that, even though he may have had much support in various parts of the nation, a significant number of Australians would be against him regardless of what he decided to announce on the footsteps of Parliament. As such, and even though Whitlam probably did not know it at the time, the armed forces had been alerted to expect trouble by the Governor-General. Although the reservists had not been called up, the regular forces were mobilising nevertheless with the possible task of taking on rioting students and trade unionists. This could have meant that Australia would face a war, in the end, not too dissimilar to Vietnam, which was clearly an experience anyone, let alone Whitlam, would want to avoid. Furthermore, Whitlam knew all too well the fate of the socialist Chilean President Allende from only a few years before where his death, at the hands of the military, meant a dreadful future for Chile under the likes of Pinochet. Taking account of all this, then, as well as Whitlam’s character, it is not surprising then that he declined to call for a revolution.

Although the above few paragraphs may appear to make Whitlam out to be pious, in truth he was anything but. He was a politician first and foremost. Whilst Whitlam may have feared destruction and much bloodshed, had he called for a revolution, we must remember that he was also a lawyer who loved the Constitution. He believed that the Constitution was on his side. But he also believed that he was just given a huge political windfall. Due to lots of different reasons, the Labor Party had become very unpopular with the voters. The oil blockade of OPEC ensured a global recession had taken place. Not only was the price of oil high, but food and everything else had become much more expensive. Similarly, unemployment began to rise and numerous companies had gone to the wall. Then there was the Loans Affair business. All this made for one very unhappy Australian electorate.

Then came The Dismissal. This changed the entire political scene, not just overnight, but within a matter of minutes. All of a sudden Whitlam was seen in a new light by many Australians insofar as it was seen that big business, the Liberal Party, not to mention the nation’s elites, had broken the rules in order to kick Whitlam out of office by any means necessary. To put it simply, in terms most Australians understood, the so called “neutral umpire”, that being the Governor-General, had conspired with the “enemy” which led him to deliberately cheat and break the rules. Whitlam, in the few hours he had from when he was dismissed to when he gave his impromptu speech on the steps of Parliament, had probably thought about this and believed that, in just under a month’s time, he would romp it in at the elections and given a new lease of life. He more than likely believed that, if he played by the rules, whilst the others did not, Australians would side with him, if for nothing else, he played the game fair.

What Whitlam did not calculate on, however, was the political campaign waged by Fraser. Fraser knew he was tarnished by The Dismissal, regardless of how innocent he tried to portray himself, and hence basically ignored The Dismissal in his election campaign. Consequently, he concentrated on petrol prices, he concentrated on Australia being in an economic recession, he concentrated on bankruptcies, and he concentrated on unemployment. At first, Australians hardly listened to what Fraser had to say, as they were too wound up in the emotional climatic events of The Dismissal itself. But as the election approached, Australian’s anger over The Dismissal lessoned and they looked into their ever shrinking wallets. It is probably fair to say that the election results in December 1975 were of mixed emotions. In the end, however, Australia may have wanted to vote for Whitlam, but their reduced hip pockets made them vote for Fraser instead.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Primary Sources

Books

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1987.

Congalton, A. A., Status and Prestige in Australia, Melbourne: F. W. Cheshire Publishing, 1969.

Fraser, M., Malcolm Fraser on Australia, (eds) White, D. M. and Kemp, D. A. Melbourne: Hill of Content Publishing, 1986.

Kerr, Sir John, Matters for Judgement, Melbourne, Macmillian Press, 1979.

Mackerras, M., Elections 1975, Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers, 1975.

Quick, J. and Garran, R. The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, Sydney: Legal Books, 1995.

Whitlam, E. G., The Truth of the Matter, Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia, 1979.

Whitlam, E. G., The Whitlam Government 1972-1975, Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia, 1985.

Secondary Sources

Journals

Archer, J. and Maddox, G., “The Concept of Politics in Australia“, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP7-12.

Forward, R., “Editorial opinion and the Whitlam government“, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP136-141.

Holmes, J., “Swingers and stayers, 1974-75“, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP47-53.

Staveley, R. W. 1976, “The conventions of the constitution: Kerr’s folly”, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP16-19.

Books

Ayres, P., Malcolm Fraser, Richmond: William Heinemann, 1987.

Beed, T., “Opinion Polling and the Elections”, in H. R. Penniman, (ed.), Australia at the Polls, Washington: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977, PP211-256

Bolton, G., The Oxford History of Australia, The

Middle Way 1942-1988, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Browning, H. O., 1975 Crisis, Sydney: Hale and Iremonger, 1985.

Chomsky, N. Necessary Illusions, Boston: South End Press, 1989.

Clark, M., A Short History of Australia, fourth edition, Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1995.

Connell, R. W., Ruling Class, Ruling Culture, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Cooray, L. J. M., Conventions, The Australian Constitution, and the Future, Sydney: Legal Books Pty. Ltd. 1979.

Freudenberg, G., A Certain Grandeur, Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1977.

Goodall, P., High Culture, Popular Culture, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1995.

Goot, M., Constructing Public Opinion, Sydney: Ethnic Affairs Commission, 1984.

Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N., Manufacturing Consent, New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.

Horne, D., Winner Take All?, Ringwood: Penguin Australia, 1981.

Horne, D., Death of The Lucky Country, Ringwood: Penguin Australia, 1976.

Howard, C., The Constitution, Power and, Politics, Melbourne: The Dominion Press, 1980.

Kelly, P., November 1975, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1995.

Kelly, P., The Dismissal, Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers, 1983.

Kelly, P., The Unmaking Of Gough, Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers, 1976.

Lane, P. H., An Introduction to the Australian Constitution, second edition, Sydney: The Law Book Company, 1977.

Lloyd, C. J., “The Media and the Elections”, in H. R. Penniman, (ed.), Australia at the Polls, Washington: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977, PP171-210.

Lloyd, C. J. and Clark, A., Kerr’s King Hit, Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1976.

McMullin, R., The Light on the Hill, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Marshall, I. And Kingbury, D. Media Realities, South Melbourne: Longman, 1996.

Molony, J., The Penguin History of Australia, Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia, 1987.

Reid, G. S., “Conventions and the Constitution”, in A. Parkin, J. Summers, and D. Woodward, (eds.), Government, Politics and Power in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd. 1980, PP67-69.

Sawer, G. 1980, “Laws and Convenstions”, in A. Parkin, J. Summers, and D. Woodward, (eds.), Government, Politics and Power in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd. 1980, PP62-66.

Sawer, G., Federation Under Strain, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1977.

Sexton, M., Illusions Of Power, Sydney: George Allen and Unwin, 1979.

Smith, R, , “The News Media”, in R. Smith, and L. Watson, (eds.) Politics in Australia, North Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1989, PP254-269.

Turner, G. “Media Texts and Messages”, in S. Cunningham, and G. Turner, (eds.) The Media in Australia, second edition, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1997, PP291-348.

Ward, R., The History of Australia: The Twentieth Century 1901-1975, London: Heinemman Educational Books, 1978.

Weller, P. and Smith, R. F. I. 1977, “The Rise and Fall of Whitlam Labor: The Political Context of the 1975 Elections” in H. R. Penniman, (ed.), Australia at the Polls, Washington: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977, PP49-76.

West, F., “Constitutional Crisis 1975 – An Historian’s View”, in A. Parkin, J. Summers, and D. Woodward, (eds.), Government, Politics and Power in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd. 1980, PP70-80.