America & UK - Response to 'Refugee Crisis'

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/where-americas-response-middle-east-refugee-crisis-89876193#sthash.TTVXD7DE.dpuf Where is America's response to the Middle East refugee crisis? Peter Van Buren Friday 18 September 2015 16:55 UTC The answer lies in empty rhetoric from those who began America's wars in the region under the guise of humanitarian intervention. A searing image of a refugee child lying dead on a beach finally alerted the world to a crisis now entering its fifth year. Awareness is never bad, but here it too easily bypasses the question of where all the refugees come from, in favour of a simpler meme. One is reminded of Malala, one story that pushes aside millions. Such narratives bait a familiar trap: the need to “do something”. That “something” in the Middle East is often the clumsy hand of military intervention under the thin cover of humanitarian rhetoric. Cries answered that way have a terrible history of exacerbating a problem they ostensibly set out to solve. The scope of the problem is staggering. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, there are more than three million Syrian refugees in the Middle East. Inside Syria itself, over 17 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, including those internally displaced. Only 350,000 Syrians are estimated to have travelled to Europe. They are the ones you see on television. In Iraq, some 1.8 million people were displaced between January and September 2014, a declared United Nations emergency, and Iraqis are currently the second-largest refugee group in the world. Yet even now the New York Times speaks of a "new wave" of Iraqi refugees, driven in part by "years of violence and unmet promises for democracy by a corrupt political elite". The situation in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere is much the same. There is a common denominator behind all of these refugee flows: they are, in whole or in part, the product of American "humanitarian interventions". In 2003, President George W. Bush declared the goals of the United States in invading Iraq included freeing its people. In case that was not clear enough, in 2007 Bush proclaimed the American military the "greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known". Yet by 2007 the number of displaced persons in Iraq had grown by some 50 percent. President Barack Obama used similar rhetoric in 2014, when he revived the United States' war in Iraq in response to a "humanitarian crisis that could turn into a genocide" for the Yazidi people. “One Iraqi cried that there is no one coming to help,” President Obama said at the time. “Well, today America is coming to help.” A senior administration official went on to explicitly describe the action as a humanitarian effort. Some 5,000 airstrikes later, that humanitarian effort is now a bloody war with Islamic State, metastasized across multiple nations, exacerbating the refugee flow. For the Yazidis, long-forgotten by Americans as the no longer needed casus belli, the war enveloped them in Islamic State's slave trade. The conflict in Syria remains connected to the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, in the form of militarised Sunni militias which took up arms, the growth of al-Qaeda and its off-shoots in Iraq, and of course the birth of Islamic State. Add to that the elimination of any effective border between Iraq and Syria to allow those forces to flow freely back and forth. American intervention in Syria ratcheted up seemingly on a schedule, all around the theme of saving the Syrian people from their dictator, Bashar al-Assad (similarities to George W Bush's 2003 wording in reference to Saddam Hussein are noted). After it appeared Assad used chemical weapons in 2013, it was American Secretary of State John Kerry who insisted that it was “not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter”. Airstrikes were forestalled for a time, then popped up in 2014 aimed not at Assad, but at Islamic State. Chaos has gone on to drawn numerous foreign powers into the conflict. With Libya in 2011, there was again a "humanitarian effort," led by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton sold intervention as a necessity: “Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled. The cries would be, ‘Why did the United States not do anything?’” That “doing something” helped push Libya into failed state status, feeding the refugee flow and bleeding conflict into neighbouring countries. It is foolish to claim the United States alone "caused" all of these refugee flows; multiple factors, including the aggressiveness of Islamic State, are in play. But it would be equally foolish to ignore American culpability, directly in Iraq and in Libya, and via arms flows and the fanning of flames, in Syria and Yemen. The common element is a stated intent to make things better.  The common result is the opposite. To many, particularly outside the United States, political rhetoric is just the aural garbage of imperialism. But inside the United States, military “humanitarian” intervention generally enjoys robust support. It may look like a shoddy product to some, but people continue to buy it, and thus it continues to happen. Politicians seem to know how to feed the public's demands to “do something” triggered by an emotional photograph for their own purposes. There exists an inverse relationship between those that create refugees and those who help them. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees referred 15,000 Syrians to Washington for resettlement over the last four years; the United States accepted only 1,500, citing, among other issues, concerns over terrorists hiding among the groups. But that was then, pre-photo. Post-photo, with no apparent irony, United States Senator Patrick Leahy stated the refugee crisis “warrants a response commensurate with our nation’s role as a humanitarian leader”. Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States is “looking hard at the number” of additional Syrian refugees it might accommodate, given America's “leadership role with respect to humanitarian issues and particularly refugees”. Right on schedule following Kerry's remarks, President Obama promised, per the New York Times headline, to "Increase Number of Syrian Refugees for US Resettlement to 10,000." With the problem seemingly solved, albeit only 10,000 out of millions, the plight of the refugees disappeared from America's front pages. Left unsaid was the emptiness of even such non-military humanitarian rhetoric. President Obama did not mention, nor was he asked about, the reality that refugees to the US are processed, not accepted. That processing can take years (the average out of Syria is two years at present), indefinite if enough information on a person's security background cannot be amassed. If a positive "up" decision cannot be made that a person is "safe," then the default is indefinite pending status. Such a conundrum has, for example, stymied the applications of many Iraqis and Afghanis who served as translators for the American military and fear for their lives, only to have been left behind. There also remain voices calling for another escalation of war in the Middle East to deal with the “root causes” of the refugee crisis, loosely defined for now as Islamic State's continued existence. There is an immediate need to do more to help the refugees moving into Europe, and those still in the Middle East. That, and that alone, should comprise the “do something” part of a solution. Long term, if the primary response is simply more military intervention in the name of humanitarianism, or more empty promises, the answer is best left as “doing less”. - Peter Van Buren is a retired 24-year veteran of the US Department of State, including service in Iraq. He is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent. He lives and writes from New York City. http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/where-americas-response-middle-east-refugee-crisis-89876193#sthash.TTVXD7DE.dpuf ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Military 'interventions' abroad are nothing to do with 'humanitarian' concerns.  Even if the media and those in power pretend they are. The bottom line is strategic aims & profit making.  Nothing more. I don't think politicians in the US actually feed a demand to 'do something,' following political and media exploitation of emotive imagery. In my opinion, it is more a case of providing themselves with a pretext for the acts that they intend to perform, rather than some general public overwhelming care-factor demanding US action. USA takes 15,000 refugees in 4 YEARS and then accepts only 1,500. Meanwhile look at what Europe, particularly Germany and Sweden, are taking in -- despite opposition.  Sweden and Germany are the biggest American puppets in Europe, and they're selling out their domestic populations for the Yankee Dollar. Australia has pledged as follows: "It will also pay to support 240,000 people who have fled Iraq and Syria and are now living in neighboring countries, a cost expected to run $44 million Australian dollars, or $31 million."  Australia currently resettles about 13,750 people annually under humanitarian visas, a number scheduled to increase to 18,750 by 2018-19. The 12,000 places will be in addition to that quota, Mr. Abbott’s office said. [here] Therefore, Australia is taking 138,750 persons between 2015-2019 (inclusive), by my estimation. So the Liberal government  that's punishing the Australian unemployed, pensioners, homeless, and Australian families queued up for public housing, finds millions per annum towards mopping up the consequences of US and allied 'intervention' abroad. Meanwhile, Australian opposition politicians are calling on the Liberal government to do 'more' in the way of mop-up operations.  Obama, the current American stage manager of this entire Middle Eastern disaster, is only taking 10,000 (of which he'll be tossing 8,500 back).  What a rort. Kerry's come up with the 'looking hard' to 'see how many more' they can accommodate.  Brilliant move.  I can just see him sucking in some air while he's saying that. Obama says 10,000 ... but of that, expect them to actually take only 1,500, going by past record. This is insane. It's insane to create all this chaos in the first place.  And it's just as insane to expect various domestic populations to absorb the resulting mayhem, particularly given the disruption to native populations in Europe. The cowardice of the European politicians is astounding. This has been an ongoing problem for years now -- see Lampedusa -- locals were fed up with the non-stop arrivals from Africa, years ago. The European politicians would have known exactly what is going on, but they did nothing. We're talking about people that run countries and people who have advisers and a wealth of information and experience, not ordinary people who have no idea and no say. Yet they did nothing. Instead of setting up refugee facilities in situ in the Middle East and in Africa and instead of securing European borders, they've sat on this for years doing nothing but standing by letting this chaos home in on their domestic fronts.  Now, they've not only let Europe get swamped by a massive surge of uncontrolled immigration from all over, Germany's Angela Merkel went that step further and invited the chaos by announcement a month ago, probably to give Dave Cameron and the rest of the sell-out European politicians a face-saver excuse for taking on-board yet more alien arrivals. Check out Dave Cameron's slick apportioning of blame to Bashar al-Assad, whose government he and his corporate friends have been trying to depose for years now. Dave Cameron and his partners in crime have created the chaos in Syria by supporting terrorists, in order to take down the Syrian government.  And the chaos of their making isn't confined to Syria:  there's several countries that have been targets of Western 'intervention'. Dave Cameron's government (as America's second banana in the Middle East), acting on behalf of interests that have nothing to do with the average Briton, is responsible for creation of this mess.  But why should the chaos that these corrupt politicians create abroad become the financial and social burden placed upon the average Briton or European, whose present and future living conditions are detrimentally impacted? British and European vulnerable and working classes are punished by the aggressive foreign policies of these well-heeled corporate-serving politicians, who don't have to live with the immediate or future chaos they create at home (or abroad), as theirs is the buffer of wealth and privilege. You'll hear them and their media representatives exhort that there's a 'moral obligation' to bend over and take more of what they're serving up as a side dish to corporate servitude. As if these corporate puppet politicians give a damn about 'moral obligation'.   They're all the same.  They all serve the same interests. People need to resist and tell these middle-class lawyer-politicians to shove off.  Tell these representatives of corporate greed to make alternative arrangements for the consequences of their wars and proxy wars overseas -- arrangements that don't involve sucking up public funds, straining public amenities, or causing social problems for which there is no remedy. If governments acting for corporate interests want to pillage resources the world over to enrich Western corporate beneficiaries of capitalism and the parasites that attach, there's probably not much that can be done to prevent that without imposing an alternate economic and power structure (on a state and power structure that will not relinquish power willingly), which is unlikely to happen. However, I think domestic populations ought to at least come to consider such ventures as an external cost to be strictly borne by corporate beneficiaries, rather than funded by the state, underwritten by taxpayers, or subsequently imposed as a 'crisis' on the then domestically displaced and punished vulnerable and working class populations. That sounds really mercenary, but I don't see what the alternative might be.   Apart from maybe also campaigning against war and applying as much pressure to that, as applying pressure to maintenance of cultural and economic standards.  Demanding cultural integrity and economic security should be straightforward.  But it's not.   But people should at least consider demanding their due, making military interventions an unattractive business plan, the consequences of which are not going to be willingly mopped up by obliging domestic populations. To my way of thinking, it makes far more sense to forget the promised nirvana of universalism evangelised by missionaries, and to demand what is essential to survival, in this world. UK to take up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years, David Cameron confirms Britain is to respond to the refugee crisis facing Europe by taking 20,000 refugees from the camps on the borders of Syria over the next five years, David Cameron has announced. Cameron told the House of Commons the UK would “live up to its moral responsibility” towards people forced from their homes by the forces of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and the Islamic State terror group. The prime minister said the refugees would not immediately be granted full asylum status, giving them a right to settle, but instead a humanitarian status that will allow them to apply for asylum at the end of five years. [...] The European commission is understood to be preparing to ask EU member states to take part in a mandatory scheme to resettle 160,000 migrants who have already arrived on the continent. The French president, François Hollande, has said France is ready to take in 24,000 people. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/uk-will-accept-up-to-20000-syrian-refugees-david-cameron-confirms    Britain current refugees:  30,000 DAVID Cameron’s promise to take in 20,000 Syrian immigrants will spark a deep North/South divide across Britain with a single working class northern town taking more refugees than the entire affluent South East region. EXTRACTS Staggeringly just four towns within a few miles of each other - Bolton, Liverpool, Rochdale and Manchester - would become home to 2,903 refugees alone. "Little or no regard is given to the impact from the moment new arrivals move in – in terms of ongoing costs to vital local support services, like schools and GPs – or the impact on the neighbourhood. "The prime concern of the bean counters is to get this done as cheaply as possible and housing costs represent a significant part of the bill from accepting asylum seekers. "We know that when unmanaged and not properly understood, community change of any kind can lead to tensions which affect both the area hosting the new arrivals and those seeking safe refuge themselves.  "If government fails, they fail us all." "Since 2012, when the contract for managing the distribution of asylum seekers was handed to Serco, the number of asylum seekers in the North West has risen by 50% but fallen by 20% in London. Home Office currently uses private contractor Serco to home people seeking asylum in Britain, but not those who have already been granted refugee status. It is not yet clear whether or not the company will be used to allocate the 20,000 Syrians Mr Cameron has promised sanctuary to. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/604769/Migrant-crisis-north-England-David-Cameron-Syrian-refugees Other Serco Group plc British outsourcing company HQ Hook, Hampshire Operates public and private transport and traffic control, aviation, military weapons, detention centres, prisons and schools on behalf of its customers. "There has been a history of problems, failures, fatal errors and overcharging." Defence Serco held defence contracts in 2004, including the UK Government's contract for the maintenance of the UK Ballistic Missile Early Warning System at RAF Fylingdales; contracts are also held for the operation and maintenance of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Halton and RAF Northolt in the UK and RAF Ascension Island in the mid-Atlantic.  Serco also provides support services to garrisons in Australia.  Serco also manages many aspects of operations at the Defence College of Management and Technology in Shrivenham.  Serco is one of three partners in the consortium which manages the Atomic Weapons Establishment.  Serco also has a 15-year contract worth £400 million to provide facilities management services to the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl). Serco Marine Services is responsible for fleet support at the three main UK naval bases, HMNB Portsmouth, HMNB Devonport and HMNB Clyde. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco Serco is failing, but is kept afloat thanks to Australia's refugee policy Antony Loewenstein EXRACTS Serco shares dive after scandal According to Rupert Soames’s script, Serco will emerge in 2017 as a smaller and sharper operator. On the way, though, operating profits will fall as low as £100m. Tuesday 11 November 2014 12.41 AEDT   It’s a sign of the times that a company like Serco, with murky financial statements masking its true economic shape, is continually rewarded for failure by new and larger contracts Revealingly, the corporation admitted that without its Australian detention network, its profit would have been even worse. In other words, imprisoning asylum seekers in poor conditions for extended periods of time in remote locations is good for business. Serco won the contract to manage all of Australia’s mainland facilities and Christmas Island in 2009 – I was part of a team that first published the contract between Serco and Canberra in 2011 – and the profits have soared ever since. From a $370m contract in 2009 to well over $1bn today, surging refugee boats have been invaluable to Serco’s bottom line. Serco has benefitted from an opaque reporting process and desperate federal politicians and bureaucrats who needed corporate help with an immigration system that ran out of control when asylum seekers started arriving in large numbers from Sri Lanka, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond. Neither the government nor Serco could handle the influx, and both detainees and guards suffered. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/11/serco-is-failing-but-is-maintained-afloat-thanks-to-australias-refugee-policy  Comment The amount of taxpayer money the Australian government spends on keeping unauthorised immigration at bay is staggering. Why is it that all those lawyer-politicians swanning around Canberra cannot come up with a simple proposal that says something like:  Nah. Take Israel as an example (and precedent) for bailing from international treaty: Although Israel has signed the 1998 Rome Statute on 28 August 2002, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel, the following communication: "...in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on 17 July 1998, [...] Israel does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, Israel has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000. Israel requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."  [here]  [those dates are conflicting ie signed:  28 Aug 2002 & 31 Dec 2000 ... which is it?] Once again, Israel is sane where other nations -- Australia, in this case -- appear positively insane for going through the expensive motions of what should be a very simple. Withdrawal is a sound solution to an obligation that does not serve one's national interests. Anyone who thinks it's in Australia's national interests to show any weakness whatsoever in respect of unauthorised immigration is insane. The desires of gullible well-meaning Christian grannies, saviours, martyrs, missionaries, intellectuals, and champaign socialists don't translate at all well in terms of the demands of concrete reality. ꕤ

Video - Turkey - Migrant Mayhem

ꕤ Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NhqUVEKY4 Turkey: Blocking Passage to Greece   Published on 18 Sep 2015 "Clashes erupted when Turkish police decided to prevent refugees from marching any further towards the Greek border, Friday.  Hundreds of refugees had started to march from their improvised camp on the outskirts of the border city of Edirne towards the Turkish-Greek border, earlier on Friday, with the police closely following them." RT News Dean Chapman comment, YouTube:   "Created by the war machine" ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Yep.  And look at this mayhem, post Merkel's open house announcement. It's just a drop in the ocean that's been making its way to Europe for years head of this German-encouraged surge. The latest figure quoted has been 1 out of 5 Syrian.   But I wouldn't be relying on anything Europe has to offer in the way of information. There's absolutely no control of the situation. Taking Europe would be a piece of cake for anyone so motivated from the southern flank, judging by European ineptitude in the face of migration. Meanwhile, USA's John Kerry is calling for Assad to be removed.  While the US has backed terrorists that are destroying Syria and surrounds, leaving Europe to foot the economic and social bill. Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

Australia: Turnbull Rising

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://newmatilda.com/2015/09/19/rise-malcolm-turnbull-staggering-wealth-surprising-aggression-substantial-intellect Summary Malcolm Turnbull wealth from:  stake in local ISP OzEmail / sold lawyer investment banker co-chairman of Goldman Sach’s Australian unit from 1997-2001 Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs: "world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid"  ... "relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money" ... ... financial crisis ... "a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates" HIH "Australia’s then-second largest insurance company, HIH" "HIH took over FAI for $300 million, but its assets were “grossly misstated”  "HIH would become the largest corporate collapse in the country’s history, with liquidators estimating losses of up to $5.3 billion.” "Turnbull, in his capacity at Goldman Sachs, was the “primary adviser to FAI”, whose chief executive was Rodney Adler." "Turnbull was accused of concealing from the FAI board that he was working with Adler to take the company private. Adler was later jailed, but the Royal Commission cleared Turnbull and Goldman Sachs of any wrongdoing." Wentworth Electorate eastern suburb - Sydney Of 10 richest suburbs in Sydney =  5 postcodes were in Wentworth Of 10 most expensive suburbs in Australia =  5 are in Wentworth Turnbull resides = “vast waterfront estate” in Point Piper, similar to a nearby mansion which sold for $52 million Turnbull = only politician to make the BRW Rich 200 in 2010, with personal wealth of $186 million {  next wealthiest at the time was Kevin Rudd and his wife Therese Rein, at $56 million } Wentworth = safe Liberal seat = reason: voters in Wentworth vote in support of their own financial interests Wentworth =  large Jewish population =  Turnbull has represented an electorate with “the largest Jewish community in New South Wales” Turnbull = staunch defender of the Israeli government = strong relationship with many elements of Jewish community, & its major organisations Censorship 'Hate speech' reform = killed off by Abbott and Brandis duo = Turnbull likely to back Brandis’s attempt to: more strictly regulate racist speech which appears to have been driven by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies concern at a speech made by Hizb ut-Tahrir = Turnbull - will be careful not to antagonise the Jewish community Israel Turnbull competed every election with Labor candidates = by promising to be the most loyal to the interests of the Israeli govt = as PM,will need to temper his advocacy for Israel Foreign Minister Julie Bishop = on pro-Israel extreme side of spectrum = opposition unlikely to challenge Turnbull on this, esp. 'Shadow Foreign Affairs' spox Tanya Plibersek = biggest challenge re Iranian govt: selling outreach and rehabilitation, under Julie Bishop to Liberal party's Jewish supporters Turnbull Profile by John Lyons Good Weekend - 1991 'threat' appears x10 'fear' appears x6 Abbott embarrassingly gauche vs Turnbull recipient of proper class training David Hicks 2005 - Turnbull address, Amnesty International (in Paddington) =  great charm and persuasion =  coupled with: "Turnbull wouldn’t commit to saying or doing anything" Turnbull speech - 7 July 2015  -  *worth checking out http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-to-the-sydney-institute-magna-carta-and-the-rule-of-law-in-the-digit Policy led campaign for Australia to become a Republic support for gay marriage climate change - watered down version of Rudd’s plan Climate Change “We cannot be seen as a party of climate sceptics, of do-nothings on climate change." [Turnbull] = "Howard’s obstinacy on the issue helped pave the way for the election of Kevin Rudd in 2007." {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} = Turnbull negotiated "a watered down version of Rudd’s plan on climate change action" ... committed to no more than cuts of 5 per cent of emissions below 2000 by 2020" / described as inadequate {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} "attack on public opinion from both sides of the political spectrum played a major role in destroying public faith in the urgency of political action on climate change" {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} "Abbott’s gambit of fiercely opposing action on climate change was seen by many as a risky, if not foolish ..." {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} Turnbull =  lost the leadership of Liberals by x1 vote "... rebuke and overthrow of Turnbull for his position on climate change can be seen as the lesson to him in his second run as leader."   {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} Immigration 2009 Turnbull warned Australia a “soft target” by Rudd’s reforms to Howard’s policies Turnbull =  “The object of Australia's border protection policies should be no boats.”" Turnbull 2009 = said Rudd has “lost control of our borders”, with the arrival of a new “people smuggling boat with illegal immigrants”. Turnbull = favoured - reintroduction of: Temporary Protection Visas Offshore processing Video linked in Article (quote from audio, not article) Muslim Schools 1:15 "It is important for us that we promote and encourage Islam and Islamic traditions which are moderate, which support freedom, which support democracy, and which support Australian values -- not in the sense of 'Aussie values' -- but in the sense of democracy, rule of law, tolerance, freedom.  That's what we're talking about."[Malcolm Turnbull] Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgTcwWOscqc&feature=youtu.be Jewish organisations =  thrilled by Turnbull’s promotion Muslim leaders = cautious optimism re rise of Turnbull Business =  very excited by the rise of Turnbull = business lobby is excited, & have good reason to be =  Turnbull might be able to push through their favoured measures: reforms to laws - currently preventing media monopolies = Turnbull:  "only way, we can ... remain ... first-world society ... if we have outstanding economic leadership, if we have strong business confidence" *But:  WorkChoices and Joe Hockey’s first budget have shown, these are areas where Liberal govt must tread lightly Right-wing 'low-brow conservatives' = not so keen on Turnbull & elitism Murdoch press right-wing pundits = not fans of Turnbull Murdoch = but Rupert Murdoch  appears to have rallied behind Turnbull to beat the ALP Murdoch Press =  Murdoch press may well be able to turn away many of the Coalition’s voters from Turnbull {but, why would they?} MEDIA Turnbull = favourable coverage from: Monthly ABC Fairfax LEFT Not much reason for leftists to be optimistic = different rhetoric, but same sell CONCLUSION Turnbull =  liberal instincts, tempered by the same ruthlessness he showed in his business dealings =  commitment to liberal values - outweighed by commitment to pursuing power when he led the Opposition source https://newmatilda.com/2015/09/19/rise-malcolm-turnbull-staggering-wealth-surprising-aggression-substantial-intellect ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Summary, as I see the article.  Best to go to article for the full deal, as this is just what caught my eye ... and what I've understood, which isn't necessarily 100%.  Very good article.  Really enjoyed checking that out. So somewhere between being in defence of freedom of speech, Brandis has back-flipped and now wants tighter censorship of speech / expression that might cause 'offence'? That's rather confusing.  Can't Brandis make up his mind? Any chance of legislating against the passage of politically suppressive bullsh*t? Just did a catch-up on the Brandis back-flip, which is really also a Liberal party election promise back-flip: Brandis Backflip On Hate Speech http://markdreyfus.nationbuilder.com/brandis_backflip_on_hate_speech Laws restricting freedom of speech don't merely apply to the occasional 'genocide advocate' or whatever that guy is that's supposedly a catalyst for the Liberal party back-flip. Suppressive laws of this kind affect everybody, across all manner of political and historical debate -- or lack thereof. Other Mark Dreyfus QC MP Attorney-General of Australia 4 Feb 2013 – 18 Sept 2013 Preceded by:  Nicola Roxon Prime Ministers Julia Gillard Kevin Rudd Australian Labor Party Promoted to Attorney-General - after resignation of Nicola Roxon / reason cited:  Roxon wanted to be with her family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dreyfus Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

Video: Malcolm Turnbull & the Rule of Sharia Law?

ꕤ Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgTcwWOscqc&feature=youtu.be TITLE Malcolm Turnbull Talks Muslim Schools ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- 1:15  "It is important for us that we promote and encourage Islam and Islamic traditions which are moderate, which support freedom, which support democracy, and which support Australian values -- not in the sense of 'Aussie values' -- but in the sense of democracy, rule of law, tolerance, freedom.  That's what we're talking about." ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Guess Turnbull would rather ignore the fact that the 'rule of law,' according to Islamic tradition, is sharia law, and that Islam as a philosophy is inherently antithetical to tolerance and freedom ... irrespective of the gifts of Arabic numerals and falafel. How's this for a slippery parallel universe ... "... not in the sense of 'Aussie values' ..." Is this the same guy who led the campaign for Australia to become a Republic? ꕤ

Australia - Liberal Leader, Malcolm Turnbull

ꕤ Article SOURCE #1 http://stopturnbull.com/ #2 http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/gw-classics/raging-turnbull-20140904-10c7ye.html #1 Why Turnbull is a Labor Stooge The Liberal Party is supposed to be the custodian of Classical Liberalism and Conservatism. Malcolm Turnbull is neither. He is a leftist-progressive and secular humanist, who wants to take Australia in the same general philosophical direction as the Labor Party and the Greens. [ ... ] UPDATE #2 [19th Sep]: The ABC appears to have deliberately taken down some pages I have linked to on their website as references, in some futile attempt to stifle me. I have therefore replaced some of these links with the Google cache versions. I will try to find any others.  [ ... ] 13th April, 1991 – In a Good Weekend magazine feature article, Turnbull’s acquaintances are quoted calling him “a prick”, “a turd”, “offensively smug”, “easy to loathe”, “cynical”, “overbearing”, “chilling”, “unnecessarily aggressive”, “vicious”, “nasty”, “savaging”, “abrasive”, “breathtakingly arrogant”, “a good exploiter of publicity”, someone who “will do anything to get what he wants”, and someone who would “devour anyone for breakfast”. The article notes Turnbull’s hypocrisy in proclaiming to support free speech, but silencing his critics with fear via threats of litigation. Indeed the Good Weekend journalist writes that, during an interview, Turnbull threatened to take out an injunction to prevent his story seeing the light of day, and gave a mini-lecture on the Defamation Act. This sort of hypocrisy squares perfectly with Turnbull’s contemporary lip service in support of free speech, whilst strongly supporting draconian restrictions on free speech under the Racial Discrimination Act. [ ... ] It is also revealed that Turnbull nicknames himself “Satan” and there are accounts of Turnbull verbally abusing journalists and trying to get them sacked for supporting an opposing point-of-view to his own. source http://stopturnbull.com/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- #2 Raging Turnbull September 16, 2014  -  originally published on April 13, 1991 John Lyons In his dual careers as lawyer and merchant banker, Malcolm Turnbull has earned a reputation that inspires a mix of awe, fear and, among some, downright loathing. John Lyons subjects both the facts and the hearsay to cross-examination. source http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/gw-classics/raging-turnbull-20140904-10c7ye.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Australia's switcheroo Liberal Party leader and newly minted prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull ...  "... Justice Hunt who said he had managed "to poison the fountain of justice"." "Turnbull's scorched-earth use of the media made him unpopular with elements in the NSW Bar and was a factor in his leaving. He later moved fulltime into merchant banking." "Packer once quipped to a friend that Turnbull frightened even him. (He told the same person he would never stand between Turnbull and a bag of money.)"  [SMH] "... l have always taken the view that loyalty is a very important virtue " [ Malcolm Turnbull ]  [SMH] Buckle your seatbelts, Australia ... this has the makings of a potentially fun ride. Liberal Loyalty ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. ꕤ

The Local - Germany

ꕤ Media Selling Unicorns❄ Corporate-Serving Media In Service of Aggressive Neoliberal Foreign Policy |  Manufacturing Consent Bias.  Compliance.  Censorship. Disinformation.  Distraction.  Diversion.  Suppression.  Smear. censorship & disinformation is denial of informed consent The Local - Germany The publication re-tweets an image, originally tweeted by Doug Saunders, who appears to be an imperialist agenda defending journalist-author. It's an image of what appears to be some deluded (and rather manic looking) guy, wearing a 'refugees welcome' styled t-shirt: ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Seriously, what does that even mean, when it is merely an empty slogan that is completely divorced of social and other consequences? It's typical of the feel-good tosh the press is so good at disseminating. Having just watched a couple of videos on the effects of Islamic immigration on Germany, Europe and beyond, my gut response in the comments section, was: Guess he hasn't seen this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-QX8LuKHA If you watch the video (ignoring some of the 'end of the Western world' type of dramatisation), this is documentary footage of the impact of Islamic immigration on Britain, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden and beyond. What is contained in that footage is enough to make your blood run cold. Given the events depicted in the video, I don't believe scepticism and concern is unwarranted or extreme. My response to The Local's inane refugee glorification messaging was definitely in the dispassionate remark category:  ie 'Guess he hasn't seen this video'. Almost immediately, and out of nowhere, I have Tom Barfield, editor of The Local Germany, whom I did not personally address, reply with some incongruous message: Incongruous because: (a) there was no 'angry' anti-immigration or anti-refugee communication to The Local or to Tom Barfield from one TokyoRose; and (b) it's not often that editors of publications devote time (taken from their busy professional schedules) to launch an attack, of sorts, on measured public opinion in what is, after all, a public forum. So why is Tom Barfield on the defensive -- or is that, offensive -- one wonders? He's had 'enough this evening' ... lol   Oh, the imagery that comes to mind.  ;) Barfield is undoubtedly a propagandist on the offensive. I'd wager that Barfield's delivery is the stock-standard prepared in advance canned messaging 'response' to any comments that may challenge Barfield's publication's present round of propaganda. How desperate is this tosser to have his publication's propaganda prevail?  lol And whatever this guy is selling, I'm most definitely not buying after being accosted. Barfield comes up with this inanity ... followed by personal insult: Setting aside the 'fantasy' that is documented (and ignoring Tom Barfield's unwarranted ad hominem attack), Barfield's 'not interested' in Doug Saunders? Well, duh, of course he's not. Tom Barfield's publication, The Local, is re-tweeting Doug Saunders' feel-good refugee slogan t-shirt messaging ... and this is Doug Saunders, that's been described as follows: Doug Saunders of The Globe and Mail: all the journalistic integrity of Josef Goebbels June 9, 2014 3:29 pm By Robert Spencer http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/doug-saunders-of-the-globe-and-mail-all-the-journalistic-integrity-of-josef-goebbels Lol ... of course, he's not interested. The Editor, who's desperately pushing the imperialist serving 'humanitarian' messaging (and imperialist agenda shield), does nothing to address the shocking facts of consequences of like immigration, that's documented in video evidence. Instead, he comes up with this little gem about 'my' editing prowess ... as if a series of events can be discounted merely because they appear in the same video footage (which I can't take credit for, by the way): Ummm, why is this whacko media Editor so desperately trying to dispel the truth? Guess that anybody who wishes to be a public figure must support the prevailing ideology ... but might Barfield be taking that 'necessity of public life' a tad too far? It ends with Barfield taking the Joseph Goebbels prize in journalism and public relations: Perhaps Barfield deserves The Orwellian Prize, as well.  lol Told Barfield he wouldn't know truth if it bit him on the balls & I haven't heard further. So what's Barfield's story: Thomson Reuters Agence France Presse The Cambridge Student Guardian Group Metro International Demotix CNN part of the team covering French domestic politics      at the UK Embassy in Paris Attaché politique/Political officer Foreign and Commonwealth Office March 2013 – August 2014 (1 year 6 months) British Embassy, Paris TheLocal Germany The following probably explains Barfield's position defending the consequences of aggressive Western foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond, at an incalculable social cost to Europe: Former Attaché politique/Political officer Foreign and Commonwealth Office ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. If I understand correctly, Barfield has worked for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Britain. So this former FCO propagandist presumes to tell the public how the dire consequences of British and American imperialist aggression and destabilisations of the Middle East and Africa are really 'good' for all concerned ... despite the evidence to the contrary.  lol I rest my case: #Wanker Doug Saunders b.1967 British-Canadian journalist and author columnist for The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Canada Author book  Arrival City (2011) Arrival City: How the Largest Migration in History Is Reshaping Our World Saunders insists urban migration means improvement overall, and that the arrival city serves as a springboard for the integration of new populations. ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- 2012 Book The Myth of the Muslim Tide documented the immigration, integration and political response to Muslim minorities in Europe and North America ... book chronicles the final shift of human populations from rural to urban areas, which Saunders argues is the most important development of the 21st-century. He argues that this migration creates "arrival cities," neighbourhoods and slums on the urban margins that are linked both to villages and to core cities, and that the fate of these centres is crucial to the fortunes of nations. ...  counterargument to works by such figures as Thilo Sarrazin, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, and to the political movements of Geert Wilders and Anders Behring Breivik, which argue that Muslim immigrants cannot be assimilated, have high population-growth rates and are poised to conquer or dominate Western civilization. ...  also compares the experience of Muslim immigrants—both in their integration patterns and the political reception they receive—to earlier waves of religious-minority immigrants, notably European Roman Catholics and Eastern European Ashkenazic Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Saunders Both these individuals defend imperialist positions and interests. Guess this demonstrates why the corporate media sucks balls.  UPDATE      05 March 2016 Hey, in addition to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Britain link via the German editor's work experience, there's reportedly a US embassy link as well .... hmmmmmm: [Click image to enlarge] SOURCE ꕤ

Germany - Immigration | Britain & Europe - Immigration

ꕤ Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVWAIKoatWM&feature=youtu.be TITLE "ZDF - Islam - Effects on German" ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Watched this video, as it caught my interest. German audio combined with English subtitles makes for difficult, distracting, viewing. Documentary on the lame side, and it misses the point. Doco ends with a focus on Canada, as if that's the way to go and as if what applies in Canada is somehow applicable to Germany. Canada is a nation of immigrants, on recently colonised land. Germany is a nation of confederated Germanic tribes. In reality, there is no question of integration:   non-Germanic cannot become Germanic, even if German language and German culture were enforced and adopted by non-Germanic peoples. So why is this disastrous project even being carried out? Must-see video TITLE "One Hour Compilation of how Islam is Ruining Europe and America" Breaching 'community cohesion' standards?  Got to be kidding, Britain. France Ilan Halimi French Jewish man (Moroccan descent) kidnapped on 21 January 2006 taken to Bagneux tortured, over 3 weeks Ransom demanded of his parents. Ilan Halimi was released ... died on the way to hospital. Tens of thousands marched through the streets of Paris demanding justice for Halimi May 2011, a garden in the 12th arrondissement of Paris was renamed after him. Halimi used to play in this garden as a child. Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Halimi Kidnappers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affair_of_the_Gang_of_Barbarians Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here Canada Early 15th century British & French colonies established on region's Atlantic coast 1867 (July 1) British North America Act (BNA Act) major part of Canada's Constitution created federal dominion defines operation of the govt of Canada federal structure House of Commons Senate justice system taxation system x3 colonies joined formed:  autonomous federal Dominion of Canada Statute of Westminster 1931 Britain granted Canada near total independence Canada Act 1982 full sovereignty from legal dependence on the British parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada' British North America Acts renamed in 1982 with the patriation of the Constitution (originally enacted by the British Parliament) Still known by original name in UK records Amendments made at this time: section 92A was added: giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources Patriation term coined in Canada (from repatriation) Canadian constitution was originally a British law, it could not return to Canada = political process that led to Canadian sovereignty, culminating in 1982 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriation ꕤ