Joe’s Views and Commentary

I am rather surprised to read Mr. Henry Atkinson front page article (Knox Journal 27.1.10) stating that for him Australia Day is the day of sadness. I wonder why? I doubt that any other minority was so pampered and given so many privileges anywhere in the world as the Australian aborigines. Prof. Atkinson claims that Aborigines  have lived here for 75.000 years with their “culture and religion.”  From time to time we read that  4000 years, then 40.000 years and now 75.000 years was the time of Aboriginals living on this continent. Such claim could hardly be proven. It depends on the imagination of the author. 

It appears that only the Aboriginal activists can use free speech to the full. Nobody dares to contradict them regardless how stupid and childish claims they advance, for fear of being branded a racist – for the rest of us, free speech is O.K. but “tolerance is strongly recommended”!

However, it would not have removed any guilt complex on the part of some leading politicians. The aboriginal people in 1993 constituted some 1.5% of the total population. Yet they already had title to, or reserves for more than 14% of Australia’s land area. We cannot afford the luxury of two sets of laws; one for the aboriginal community and the other for the rest of the population. I believe that the aborigines should be treated the same as all other Australians. The very moment you introduce laws that create a priviledged class out of a small minority, whether you like it or not, you are creating  aparthaid in this country.

Federal Court hearing of the Yorta Yorta claim was held later in October 1996 under the shade of gum trees in Barmah Forest. This is rather unusual, because apart from Aboriginal claims, the rest of the community who will want to have their day in court must do so at the court’s own patch – in a court building. Apart from the additional costs involved, in setting up court’s fascilities in the bush setting, it highlights the special priviledges given to the Aboriginal claimants that are not given to anybody else.

Do you know what is so tragic? That every person or average intelligence who would dismiss such claims as childish or plain stupid, would be immediately attacked as a racist. This has nothing to do with giving Aboriginals a “fair go”, but all to do with unthinking politicians who have allowed this matter to get completely out of hand.

A Bill introduced by Mr. Michael Duffy provided two year prison sentence for “racial incitement”. This Bill became law and is known as “1995 Racial Hatred Act” is so draconian as to stiffle a free speech in this country. This law was prompted by a recommendations from three major reports – by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, the Royal Commission into Black Death in Custody and the Australian Law Reform Commission and was one of the last infamous pieces of legislation passed in the dying days of the Labor Government.

Since 1987 miners have paid about $ 250 million in royalties ( approx. $ 34 million per year). In N.T. one company alone, Ranger Uranium at Jabiru paid $ 110 million since 1980. Where does this money go? 40% of it goes to four Land Councils, 30% goes to Aboriginal organisations and the rest for the benefit of NT Aborigines

Aborigines, so we are told by some frustrated social engineer, have been in this country for some 40000 years. He was not satisfied with a mere 4.000 years B.C. but he added a zero to the end and before he had time explaining that he was only joking, this claim which cannot be scientifically proven was accepted by the community at large. There is no evidence of any cultural achievement by the aboriginal people apart from some primitive rock paintings, dances and customs. This is claimed to be a cultural heritage and Aboriginal culture.

The truth would be that while number of Aboriginal tribes roamed freely over this country prior to white settlement, they didn’t have even the most elementary living standards such as hygiene, education, housing or industry. They could not write or read like members of other civilisations. It is not a racist statement to say, that without the white man settlement, the Aborigines would continue to live in the same primitive tribal conditions that existed at the time when the white settlers arrived. Perhaps time has come for our politicians to call a halt to such stupid claims and call a spade a bloody shovel.

The Leader of the National Party, Mr. Tim Fischer while addressing a conference of business leaders in Perth on 23rd. Sept.93 stated that “There never seem to be any sense of acknowledgement or sense that the money received comes from the sweat on the brow of hard-working, tax-paying Australians across our great country.” 

Mr. Patrick Dodson presented his wish list to the Federal Government in March 1995 containing almost two hundred demands. The most glaring ones are a request giving official recognition to the Aboriginal flag and Torres Strait Inslander flag, shifting of Australia Day because 26th. January is not acceptable to the ingenious Australians and guarateed number of seats in the Federal Parliament.

Some of these demands served on the Federal Government did receive almost immediate attention. One was the decision to accord an official recognition to the Aboriginal flag. As from 14th. July 1995 it will be considered on equal footing as an official flag of this country. From rag to flag. Mind boggles on the outcome.

When our athletes compete overseas, will it mean that on Australia’s flagpole there will be two flags hoisted? Certainly it would be unique and confuse those attending to no end. Would perhaps the Aboriginal flag in the interest of political correctness and in order not to offend our Aboriginal brethern be placed above our national flag? 

I wonder why in a country which still claims to be a land of free speech anyone who dares to question even remotely the wisdom of giving the Aboriginal people everything they ask for, should be immediately attacked and ridiculed.

There are several other interesting points to remember. Some Aboriginals are are talking openly about sovereignity over these vast areas of the country that they expect to come under their control. We have seen lessons in many “independent” countries of Africa. Their leaders fight to establish independence from the white rulers and once they succeed, run with outstreched arms to the former rulers begging for aid to keep their economy from collapsing and their people starving to death. There is no independence in the true sense, if the nation is depended on economic support to make its citizens stay alive.

Mr. Kennett continued: “I received a letter last week from a section of the Aboriginal community claiming the whole of the State of Victoria for Aboriginal ownership, and that is, quite obviously outside even the broadest interpretation of the Mabo scheme.” How this claim by the Aboriginal community is going to be followed only time will tell. But here we have the Mabo exposed for all its absurdity. They simply want the whole State, lock, stock and barrel!

Our frustrated social engineer was not satisfied with a mere 4.000 years B.C. he added a zero to the end and before he had time explaining that he was only joking, this claim which cannot be scientifically proven was accepted by the  community at large. There is no evidence of any cultural achievement by the aboriginal people apart from some primitive rock paintings, dances and customs. This is claimed to be a cultural heritage and Aboriginal culture.

What was the response of our politicians? Of course they did act. In April 1995 the so-called “Aboriginal Tent Embassy” was officially added to Australia’s national heritage list alongsite such sites as Sydney Harbour Bridge and Great Barrier Rief! Thus this “tent embassy” which was considered to be an eyesore in front of the Parliament House, which makes a laughing stock of so-called “aboriginal culture”,  was officially added to the Register of the National Estate!

Australian Heritage Commission chairwoman Ms. Wendy McCarthy, said that the site’s historic value to Aboriginal people dated back thousands of years. So here we have it! Canberra was discovered thousands of years ago by the Aboriginals. What a nonsense, what a distorsion of history. No wonder that our children being tought this stupid rubbish in our schools must be confused!
The Aboriginals continue to claim that our ancestors stole their land and attempted to destroy the Aboriginal race.. Aboriginal activist, Michael Mansell has said publicly that any separate Aboriginal state must initially be funded by the taxpayers of Australia until it reaches a self-supporting stage. No wonder that many Australians feel alarmed, intimidated and even angry about such statements 

Back on 9.2.88 Mr. Hugh Morgan has spoken against the ” guilt industry”. It took several years to recognise that his predictions were true. In his speech Mr. Morgan attacked Australians for assuming guilt and shame for injustices against Aboriginals. He said that the policy of appeasement would lead to the handing over to Aboriginals  big part of Australia, probably the Northern Territory. 

He said that a new and lucrative industry was created – the guilt industry. He continued: “My description of the Aborigines as primitive nomadic tribespeople will cause apoplexy in many circles. It is important, if the psychology of the guilt industry is to work, that Aboriginals should be described and accepted as “noble savages” living in harmony with nature, free of the faults and failings of ordinary men and women. But of course, this idea of Aboriginals is a phantasy.

We may ask why further cash compensation should be provided in addition to these vast concessions given to the Aborigines? With the land at present under their control representing 14.2% of Australian land mass a further 12.5% being the Crown land  will be given to them. Thus 1.43% of the population of this country will control 26.7% of the total area of Australia. Certainly it will make them the riches landowners in the world. Why then the additional hundreds of millions over 20 years would be provided to them? As I have said earlier. The date of 19th. October 1993 will go down in history where the future generations of Australians  will be required to pay this open handed I.O.Y.’s.

On 12th. February 1999 there was a two sentense report in the Herald Sun that “the Aborigines have signed over all the land needed for the proposed Adelaide to Darwin railway in return for a $ 10 million compensation package.The land is 100 meters wide and 1385 km long”. In these two sentenses we can see why Aboriginals are so keen to get the Government recognise that there were past custodians of this country. If the Government  agrees to it, we could expect a flood of new claims for every stretch of land that may be selected for development, regardless how vital or essential service may be at stake. They will demand their pound of flesh.

In 1998/99 Federal budget the Government has provided $ 1.93 billion for Aborigines. Any reasonable person would think that this is just about enough. But like little children, some of the Aboriginal leaders will never be satisfied. Not before the whole continent is handed to them, lock stock and barrel.

I am not very found to quote President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus. Sometimes he can be a hard headed individual but this time he hit the nail on the head. Long time a global warming sceptic, in an interview with American T.V. Fox News, Klaus described global warming as a new religion not a science. He stated that after many years of study of so-called warming climate he concluded that humanity should not be forced to live based on an irrational ideology which he sees as a product of political correctness.

Klaus believes that human inventiveness and new technological advancement will moderate any effect of slight global warming. This new religion is simply an escapism from present day problems. Instead of resolving  present crisis let’s debate how the world will be like or should be like in 2050, 2080, 2200. Instead let some misguided politicians  dictate us how we should live, what we should do and how we should behave.

Let us ask a question. Can any Prime Minister and his army of advisors predict with any degree os certainty how world would be like in one or two hundred years time? How could they possibly do that? They know as well as we do that none of us will be around to tell them “we told you so”. After all we cannot even make a weather forecast for next day with any degree of certainty!

Before Parliament adjourned we were told that it was a matter of life and death to get the legislation on ETS. Pass it now to avoid a catastrophe Senate was told. Now after the fiasco of Copenhagen we can see a folly of what was proposed. Thus our Government should proceed more slowly in taking future decisions that would land us all in extra taxes without any benefits.

Before this new religion has taken over from the discredited communist philosophy, the masses were told to slave hard because somewhere beyond the rainbow a happy future awaits them all. We have seen the result. Let’s not repeat the history. Politicians are not always right!

In my “Common Sense” letter 25.11.09 I have warned against mad rush by our Government to pass ETS legislation prior to Copenhagen meeting. We should be elated that the Senate in its wisdom put at least a temporary stop on this ill considered legislation. Had the Bill been approved Mr. Rudd and Senator Wong would be charging as white knights to this Copenhagen talkfest , committing Australian taxpayers to an annual handout of some $ 70 billion.

Now we find that cool heads of so called “rich countries” are not prepared to sign on the dotted line in a hurry and to underwrite ever increasing demands by developing nations that would create a bottomless pit.

There is no price for being first to sign up while other major polluters would simply laugh at us as suckers.

I would like our politicians to explain how they can possibly justify  the cost to Australian taxpayers of this ETS scheme. It is estimated that based on the present GNP figures we would be saddled with a minimum annual bill of $ 70 billion. What will happen if the main polluter countries such as USA, China, India and Brazil opt not to sign? Yet our Prime Minister in an indecent haste to be world’s number one, commits this country to such extraordinary cost while the rest of the world would be laughing on us as suckers. There is no escape clause in the agreement. Once it is signed we are saddled with it forever.

If our politicians are determined to go ahead regardless, let them at least incorporate an escape clause making it subject  to other major polluters being in it. Or better still why not to take a lead from United States Senate and delaying decision until after Copenhagen? There is no gold medal at stake Mr. Rudd.

It appears that anybody who dares to criticise the latest “asylum seekers” is immediately branded a racist, inhuman,  not caring individual.  Wilson Tuckey was savagely attacked for daring to say the obvious. There “could be” some terrorists from Tamil Tigers units trying to infiltrate in the latest batch. Sri Lankan High Commissioner Senaka Walgampaya warned that this could be “a threat to peace and security of Australia” ( Herald Sun 30.10.09 ). Can anyone guaranteer they are not?.  So far this year 37 vessels were intercepted by the Navy  Yet the Federal Government is refusing to accept that such infiltration is possible leading us to believe that all these asylum seekers  are all clean skins.

Before good doers start jumping up and down let them explain this. If these boat people are genuine refugees why do they destroy their identification papers prior to embarking on the journey?  Wouldn’t you think that as so-called refugees they would not be ashamed to produce documents to establish their identity? Why make it hard for our immigration authorities to verify their claims for asylum are legitimate? It is easy to understand  that in some instances to process these boat people takes years. Children are used to play on our emotions and some naive people claim it is inhuman to keep them behind raiser wire. Should these children be separated from their parents?  Meanwhile they are provided with food, medical care and accommodation. For those setting a foot on Australian mainland they are provided with free legal access not available to Australian citizens. Under our judicial system such legal proceedings may take years to resolve. Could you name one other country offering illegal arrivals such treatment?  Australian taxpayers are entitled to question. Are we getting value for our money?

It is reported that professional people smugglers charge up to $ 12000 per head for transport to Australia? Where the financially oppressed family of four can obtain, by Asian standards, such vast amount of money? As many of these asylum seekers are Muslims, you could assume they would be welcomed in the Muslim country such as Malaysia or Indonesia? Why trying to reach the land of infidels? These questions should be asked and debated freely without fear, insults and abuse. There is nothing racist in it, it is just a matter of common sense!

Once again do-gooders came out in force. At the time when the society cries for increased police presence to prevent violent and unprovoked attacks, the police time is wasted by “investigating” a “horrible crime”. A mother spanked her daughter who complained to her teacher who in turned notified the police. Big deal! Instead of treating such trivial complaint as a part of parental responsibility towards a child it created a storm. Letters to newspapers galore. I have been pleased that the vast majority of respondents expressed common sense and stood by the child’s mother. The approval was likewise confirmed by overwhelming majority of T.V. viewers.

This whole episode raises a question. Who is responsible for child’s upbringing? While we do not deny the right of small minority to express their views the majority of parents should not be compelled by a few to comply to their vision of how to bring the child up.

I suspect many complainers have no children of their own or live in gay relationship and would know very little how to bring up a child. There is a difference between maltreating a child which the society rightly condemns and harmless spanking to exercise parental discipline.

How many of us saw a mother with a small child in a supermarket throwing tantrums, yelling loudly, laying and kicking on the floor?. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

What should a poor mother do in such instance? Should she consult on her mobile phone organisation such as Liberty Victoria for advice of what steps to take. Would they despatch one of their “counselors” to the supermarket to give a guidance while desperate  mother tries to keep the child in some control without touching it?

Or should she contact a nearest police station provided it is manned?  What do you think would be the police officer’s response?  Or, should the mother try to reason with a screaming child that what its doing is not in good taste?  Do you think such approach would produce results? Of course not!

If parents are responsible for their children upbringing they must be able to exercise some control and discipline in their young and formative years.

How often did we hear that parents should be held responsible for youngsters when they commit acts of vandalism or getting involved in criminal activities? If we as society restrict the power of parents to exercise control how could we expect to assume responsibility for their children behaviour?

Let’s hope similar case will not repeat itself. In the meantime my sympathy are with the mother.

Everybody signing a contract of sale to purchase a real estate is very familiar with a clause: “…subject to finance being available” Thus if the lending institution does not approve the loan, the contract is not valid and any deposit is refunded. Simple?

At present we have a debate about entering virtually single handed into a ETS which may have damaging effect on our economy and employment if tackled by Australia along. Is there a solution? Why not agree to Government bill with some amendments proposed by the Opposition  and make it subject to the majority of G20 countries signing on the dotted line. If other countries mainly the major polluters as as China India and the USA would not come to a party, we could simply opt out of the deal. After all we don’t want to be a maverick country, causing self-inflicting damage to our industry just for some ideological grandstanding. Level playing field yes, but  not walking it alone!

Chief Police Commissioner – would you dare to publish statistics?
Almost daily somebody is murdered on Melbourne streets. We can read the usual statements of how sorry we are and that such crime is absolutely unacceptable. The attackers are usually described as those of “Asian appearance” , “Middle Eastern appearance” , “Southern European appearance”, “Aboriginal appearance” and this is as far as we go.
I suggest that the Chief Police Commissioner should provide us with some down to earth statistics if he dares or is allowed to do. We want to know number of crimes committed by members of migrant communities and the percentage of such communities in total Australian population. And while we are at it, it would be helpful to state the percentage of each community on welfare benefits.
Don’t hold your breath. To disclose such information may offend tender feelings of often self-styled ethnic leaders. Why is should be so? After all if we say that according to police records X % of certain nationality have criminal records while they represent X % of Australian population? Such information would be a mere statement of fact. Are we so bamboozled by politically correct mob that we are scared to state facts?

If our immigration officers issuing visa to visitors and intending migrants were aware of such statistics, they may exercise extra caution when dealing with certain nationalities. What would be wrong with this? The population at large is entitled to know!

Subject: Uneven contest!

One parrot versus 1000 jobs = no contest! How on earth can we advance economically when some 1000 jobs are threatened because of a single parrot regardless how pretty he/she may be! The Federal Minister for Environment is considering if logging project could go ahead. If this was repeated 100 times around Australia a small army of 100000 workers would be denied employment. Wouldn’t it be easier to relocate such parrot into a zoo, where it would be protected against feral cats?

I have read excellent articles of Andrew Bolt relating to our water shortage. Thus I am puzzled by Tim Holding’s – Minister for Water argument ( Herald-Sun 28.4.09 ) that “we need water, not storage”. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us where we would store the water we need it not in storages. Imagine what our position would be today if Thompson dam didn’t exist. It was constructed in spite of some misguided opposition at the time and is still the largest dam for our water supply. What would have happened to water if the dam wasn’t build? Disappeared without any benefit whatsoever. The Minister’s argument simply couldn’t hold the water! The almost regular flooding by Mitchell river could be utilized for the benefit of Melbourne.

Thus the Government spends more on desalination plant than it would cost to build the dam. Such plant will require the vast amount of electricity to keep it running. Where will it come from? From our overloaded  system generated by coal fired power stations? Not so long ago we were asked to limit the use of electricity because of heavy overload. Are we not going to duplicate our problem?  It may well be that in not too distant future we will find ourselves short of electricity and water at the same time. It is time for common sense to prevail and these non-sensical greenie philosophies that govern our government’s  actions are thrown out of the window!

http://www.joe.observationdeck.org/