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

Greenwald Article: Australia's Prime Minister gives a Master Class in Exploiting Terrorism Fears to Seize New Powers

AUSTRALIA Tony Abbott >> Gives a Master Class in Exploiting Terrorism Fears to Seize New Powers http://interc.pt/1r1sgC0  >> #auspol >> #FreeAssangeNow Glenn Greenwald is so funny: greater chance of being killed by following causes than you do by terrorist attack: slipping in bathtub ...LOL #auspol "It’s our acceptance that ppl can live & worship in the way they choose that bothers them, not our foreign policy” - [ABBOTT] LOL > “a sweeping suppression order will prevent reporting of ..preventative detention orders.." / No Press = No democracy #auspol -----------------------------------------  COMMENT The Greenwald article was informative and made its point; but it was also very funny.  Well, to me, it was.   The need to broaden existing powers of authorities is questionable, when they have extensive powers already. And, yes, I would have to agree that those in power use the fear-factor and 'matters of national security' to pronounce whatever laws they want. Mind you, governments tend to rush through whatever they want once they're in power, so this is probably just the extreme version of what goes on -- the extreme version that involves widening powers to ridiculous degrees (eg 'preventative detention') AND, worse yet, muzzling the press who are prohibited from reporting what's going on.   That right there is a recipe for abuse of power by the state. The state can basically do whatever it wants to do with you and there's nobody out there that can even report on it! Is this Stalinist Australia?

Cybersecurity, Techie & Other

CYBERSECURITY, TECHIE & Other US 'SECRET STATE' #US national security state w/in a state = 6 million classified persons (larger than Norway, NZ or Scotland pop)! >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aMYqzGwwoF8 … -----------------------------------------------------  CYBERSECURITY #cybersecurity - Dropbox, Google & Open Technology World - lending support 2 Simply Secure 2 devel. easy-use sec. http://goo.gl/09sw4B -----------------------------------------------------  DIGITAL CURRENCY / BITCOIN Have notes & coins have had their day? Kenneth Rogoff, of Harvard University, reckons they have. http://goo.gl/4y6Ewo  / #Bitcoin ? -----------------------------------------------------  WHISTLEBLOWERS http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/144776/switzerland-prepares-to-tighten-screws-on-whistleblowers #Switzerland's parliament proposed bill Monday - weakening protection 4 whistleblowers - http://goo.gl/JcBXM9  Julius Baer / #WikiLeaks / The Swiss law is another bit of gagging legislation going around various govts. What's with that lately? It's 4 cover-ups #Switzerland clamping down on whistleblowers but offers #Snowden asylum. If I were Snowden, I'd politely decline ... LOL -----------------------------------------------------  COMMENT Loads of interesting information here.  The bit about the US 'state within a state' is rather spooky.   Might have to cross-reference that one with the other US info.

AUSTRALIAN 'SUPER-INJUNCTION'

WikiLeaks and the courts: keep the debate open By Carla Silbert Posted about 7 hours ago The ability of state institutions to shield their actions from public scrutiny is scandalous, and WikiLeaks' latest exposé adds a new and disturbing dimension to this issue, writes Carla Silbert. Australians have found themselves the beneficiaries of WikiLeaks' latest exposé - the publication of a Victorian Supreme Court suppression order so broad in scope that even the order itself is suppressed. ... It comes as little surprise that this "super-injunction" - an order that suppresses not just information such as the identity of a witness from publication, but the contents of the order itself - has come from Victoria, the state notorious as the "gag order capital" of Australia. ... When the reasons behind a court's actions remain secret, there can't be any scrutiny of those actions. That can never be in the public interest. In an era when the privacy of Australians is being increasingly compromised by the introduction of powers such as those currently being considered by Parliament to enable ASIO and ASIS to spy on private citizens in the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill, the ability of state institutions to shield their actions from public scrutiny is all the more scandalous. The WikiLeaks release has added a new, and troubling, dimension to this. Not only does the court have the power to keep us both ignorant and unaware of information of national concern, but if the cat gets let out of the bag and the documents are leaked as they have been here, we immediately find our freedom of speech restricted by threats of prosecution if we dare discuss it. Such discussions are vital to our ability to challenge the reasons why this information was withheld from us in the first place. Without these discussions, those doing the withholding can't be held to account. Extracts SOURCE - ABC - here.

So you elect a government and then the government (along with unelected intelligence agencies who presumably work for the public) do whatever they like; and then they go running to court to use the excuse of 'national security' to erode civil liberties and to fetter freedom of press, while they're scrambling to cover up some international scandal that involves government.

Having shut down scrutiny and debate by way of secret court order, the government's deftly sidestepped transparency and accountability and has, ultimately, undermined notions of democratic government.

How can this possibly be right?

WHITE HOUSE CONTROL OF MEDIA

Ted Rall's Site

RE- KABUL CIA CHIEF

Fired journalist:

Until last week I was working this story for Pando Daily, where I was a staff writer and cartoonist. We intended to publish the name — not to endanger him (which in any case would not have been possible since Langley had yanked him off his post), but to take a stand for adversarial media.

Journalists ought to publish news wherever they find it, whatever it is, damn the consequences. Credible media organizations don’t protect government secrets. They don’t obey spy agencies. Real journalists don’t cooperate with government — any government, any time, for any reason. My editor and I believed that, by demonstrating a little fearlessness, we might inspire other media outfits to grow a pair and stop sucking up to the government.

There is no longer a “we.” Pando fired me over the weekend, along with the investigative journalist David Sirota.

... Read rest @ Rall's blog ...
http://rall.com/tag/cia

-------------------------------------------


So much for freedom of press and freedom of speech.

Welcome to 'Democracy', Ukraine.

AUSTRALIA - PRESS GAGGED - SUPPRESSION ORDER 'SUPER-INJUNCTION' - WIKILEAKS - CORRUPTION SCANDAL COVER UP

Social media users could be charged for sharing Wikileaks story Date July 30, 2014 - 12:55PM Julian Assange, Wikileaks publisher, described the Victorian Supreme Court suppression order as 'unprecedented'. Social media users could land themselves in legal hot water if they share Wikileaks' reporting of a secret suppression order made by the Victorian Supreme Court. The wide-ranging suppression order was published on the group's website on Wednesday and was quickly shared on websites including Twitter and Google+. Fairfax Media's report of Wikileaks' action created a strong response on social media, and was shared thousands of times within minutes of the exclusive report's publication. It is against the law for Australian media organisations to publish the contents of the suppression order. Media lawyer Peter Bartlett, from Minter Ellison, said anyone who tweets a link to the Wikileaks report, posts it on Facebook, or shares it in any way online could also face charges. Using a hashtag such as "Wikileaks" is not in breach of the order but any mention on social media of the information detailed in it, such as people's names, is banned. Mr Bartlett said it would be difficult to prosecute Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange, given they are outside Victoria. Mr Assange remains at the Ecuador embassy in London where he has been given political asylum to avoid being extradited to the United States in relation to the leaking of secret US documents. However, any Victorian social media users, or the person who gave the documents to Wikileaks, may be easier to find and prosecute. "Unless someone within Australia somehow authorised or was deemed to have published that suppression order on Wikileaks it would be difficult to find someone to prosecute," Mr Bartlett said. "The person within the state of Victoria who has sent the suppression order to Wikileaks themselves has breached the suppression order so if police could find that person they could prosecute them." Mr Bartlett said he did not know of any person being prosecuted for sharing a court order on social media. A case involving former Manchester United player Ryan Giggs sparked debate in England about the effectiveness of court orders given the prevalence of social media. Giggs went to court to try to stop The Sun newspaper from publishing details of his extra-marital affair. The court initially banned the publication of his identity but the court's order was then widely disseminated through social media and tweeted by about 500,000 people. Giggs' case against the newspaper was eventually thrown out of court and no one was charged in relation to the tweets. The Victorian Supreme Court has been contacted for comment. SOURCE - BRISBANE TIMES - HERE.

First of all, the government uses 'national security' grounds to obtain a court 'super-injunction' suppression order to gag media coverage on some kind of international corruption scandal involving the Australian government, and THEN the press is gagged AND every Australian is threatened with imprisonment -- for the sake of this government cover up -- according to WikiLeaks.

Bloody, hell.   It would help knowing in advance which information can get you in strife.  Not clear to some (namely blogger) ... Doh!  

Will let you know how gaol was, if I've breached anything.  LOL. 

Anyway, this is democracy, freedom of press and freedom of speech at work in Australia.

----------------------------------------------------
P.S. 

What is the point of these gag orders when overseas press is reporting pretty much on the contents, the issue and on prior arrests of overseas people?