Sunday, August 29, 2010

UN - Australia's entrenched racism



MEDIA RELEASE – ‘concerned Australians’ 28 August 2010

AUSTRALIA’S ENTRENCHED RACISM

‘concerned Australians’ welcomes the report from the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The report calls for numerous changes to the way Australia deals with ‘entrenched discrimination’. One Committee Member, Patrick Thornberry, referred to, “structurally embedded discrimination in the way the Aboriginal intervention was being handled in the Northern Territory.”

The report calls for the full reinstatement of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) in the Northern Territory in a manner which ensures that the Act will “prevail over all other legislation which may be discriminatory on the grounds set out in the Convention”.

More specifically, the report states, “The Committee expresses its concern that the package of legislation under the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) continues to discriminate on the basis of race as well as the use of so called “special measures”. To comply with our international obligations considerable amendment will be required to the legislation of June 2010, Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of the Racial Discrimination) Act 2010.

Professor the Hon Alastair Nicholson, a co-author of the report “Loss of Rights” says, “The legislation of June 2010, restoring the Racial Discrimination Act reeks of hypocrisy in that at the same time as it does so it gives legislative force to aspects of the Northern Territory Emergency Response under the guise of them being ‘special measures’. The hypocrisy and double dealing involved is particularly apparent in relation to the income protection measures, which are now being ostensibly extended to the white population in a desperate attempt to avoid them being classed as discriminatory. Meanwhile the Government has acted in a questionable fashion to pressure Aboriginal communities to grant leases to it and thereby divest themselves of their lands. Fortunately the Committee has recognised what has been going on and has rightly criticised successive Australian Governments over this behaviour”

Elder, Rev. Dr Djiniyini Gondarra OAM from Galiwin’ku says, “The Australian Government has supported the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and must remove NTER measures from the legislation.”

The Committee recommends amendment to the Australian Constitution to include the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as First Nation Peoples, as well as giving consideration to the negotiation of a treaty agreement to build a constructive and sustained relationship with Indigenous people.

The report continues, “The Committee regrets the discriminatory impact this intervention has had on affected communities including restrictions on Aboriginal rights to land, property, social security, adequate standards of living, cultural development, work and remedies.”

Michele Harris OAM , spokesperson for ‘concerned Australians’ says, “the last two governments have invested huge sums of money aimed at taking control from Aboriginal people in the Territory over every aspect of life– compulsory control over Aboriginal land and leases, control over townships and community services, control over work, control over money, control over where money is spent, control over the language in which children are taught, and the list goes on.”

“ Many in Australia are unaware of the extreme changes that have been inflicted on Aboriginal people in the Territory. The recent trend in Australia has been for communication through statistics. We no longer engage with the feelings of grief and despair as is being experienced by our Aboriginal brothers and sisters in the Northern Territory.”

“Most of us, who do not live in the Territory, have no understanding of the pain that is being inflicted by the current policies. This is poignantly stated by elder Rosalie Kunoth-Monks OAM, “ It is disgusting to think that a government can inflict so much pain and so much hurt on the faces of colour and for reasons that we do not even know of.”

After the Apology most Australians expected an end to the discriminatory practices of Government. Within the next short while this should be a priority of whichever political group comes to power. Australians want change - they are disgraced by the racist tag by which our nation is becoming known. We must act on the recommendations contained in this report – Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

CONTACTS

The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC 0418 533 411

Rosalie Kunoth-Monks OAM 08 8956 9850

Rev. Dr. Djinyini Gondarra OAM 0427 140 232

Michele Harris OAM 03 9415 7164

Georgina Gartland 03 98747595



Submission to CERD "Loss of Rights" by ‘concerned Australians’


http://stoptheintervention.org/uploads/files_to_download/CERD/Loss-of-Rights-Rept-2010.pdf




Report by Rev.Dr Djiniyini Gondarra OAM and Rosalie Kunoth Monks OAM at:

http://natsiec.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/report-written-by-rev-dr-djiniyini-gondarra-oam-on-visit-to-cerd/

Media Release by ‘concerned Australians’


http://stoptheintervention.org/facts/icerd


Graeme Innes AM
Race Discrimination Commissioner
Australian Human Rights Commission speaking before CERD 11 Aug


http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/media/speeches/race/2010/20100811_CERD.html



UN says discrimination embedded in Australia


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/28/2996007.htm?section=justin



CERD/C/AUS/CO/15-17

ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION

27 August 2010

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Seventy-seventh session

2 –27 August 2010

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the convention

Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Australia

1. The Committee considered the fifteenth to seventeenth periodic report of Australia (CERD/C/AUS/15-17), submitted in one document, at its 2024th and 2025th meetings (CERD/C/SR.2024 and CERD/C/SR.2025), held on 10 and 11 August 2010. At its 2043rd meeting (CERD/C/SR.2043), held on 24 August 2010, it adopted the following concluding observations.

A. Introduction

2. While welcoming the submission of the combined fifteenth to seventeenth periodic report by the State party the Committee notes that the report was not in complete conformity with its reporting guidelines. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the State party for the presentations made by the delegation, both orally and in writing, which provided further insights into the implementation of the Convention.

B. Positive aspects

3. The Committee welcomes the State party’s expression of support, in April 2009, to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as a first step in building a sustained and constructive partnership with Indigenous peoples.

4. The Committee notes with satisfaction the National Apology for past negative Government policies issued by the State party on 13 February 2008 to Indigenous peoples and in particular the Stolen Generations, as a first step towards genuine reconciliation and reparations to be made in recognition of the history of gross violations of human rights.

5. The Committee welcomes the ratification by the State party of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the related Optional Protocol, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the standing invitation extended to all thematic special procedures, noting, in particular, the visits of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous peoples as well as the Special Rapporteur on the right to health in 2009.

6. The Committee welcomes the Government’s commitment to address Indigenous disadvantage as set out in the six “Closing the Gap” targets.

7. The Committee notes with interest the extensive National Human Rights Consultation between December 2008 and September 2009 showing an overwhelming support for the protection of human rights.

8. The Committee welcomes the contributions of the Australian Human Rights Commission to the Committee’s work, as well as the active engagement and contributions from non-governmental organizations.

C. Concerns and recommendations

9. The Committee regrets that insufficient information regarding the concrete measures for the implementation of its previous concluding observations (CERD/C/AUS/CO/14 (2005), CERD/C/304/ADD.101 (2000)) was provided by the State Party. It also regrets that many of the concerns previously addressed to it by the Committee persist and have not resulted in structural change.

The State Party is encouraged to comply with all recommendations and decisions addressed to it by the Committee and to take all necessary steps to ensure that national legal provisions further the effective implementation of the Convention. The Committee also recommends that the State party consider the establishment of a domestic implementation mechanism for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination across the federal system.

10. The Committee is concerned by the absence of any entrenched protection against racial discrimination in the federal Constitution and that sections 25 and 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution in themselves raise issues of racial discrimination. It notes with interest the recommendations from the National Human Rights Consultation Report and findings of a significant degree of community support for a federal Human Rights Act to thoroughly address the gaps in the existing model of human rights protection. The Committee also notes information provided on the State party’s plans to review all federal anti-discrimination laws, with the intention of their harmonization under the Human Rights Framework. (arts. 1 and 2)

The Committee urges the State party to ensure that the review of all federal anti-discrimination laws considers the gaps in legal and constitutional protections against discrimination and that consequent harmonization does not weaken the Racial Discrimination Act. It recommends that the State party take measures to ensure that the Racial Discrimination Act prevails over all other legislation which may be discriminatory on the grounds set out in the Convention. The Committee also recommends that the State party draft and adopt comprehensive legislation providing entrenched protection against racial discrimination.

11. While taking account of the State party’s commitment to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), the Committee regrets the absence of a full-time Race Discrimination Commissioner since 1999 and notes with concern the challenges the Human Rights Commission faces regarding limited powers, capacity, and funding (art. 2).

The Committee urges the State party to support the proper performance of the AHRC, through adequate financing and staffing, including through the appointment of a full-time Race Discrimination Commissioner. It also recommends that the State party consider expanding the powers, functions and funding of the AHRC.

12. The Committee is concerned that the collection of biometric data for Australian visa applications in ten countries, as part of national security measures, may constitute racial profiling and may contribute to increased stigmatization of certain groups (art. 2).

While acknowledging the State party’s national security concerns, the Committee underlines the obligation of the State party to ensure that measures taken in the struggle against terrorism do not discriminate in purpose or effect on grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its Statement on Racial Discrimination and Measures to Combat Terrorism (8 March 20002) and recommends that it undertake sensitisation campaigns against stereotypes associating certain groups with terrorism.

13. The Committee notes with concern the absence of a legal framework regulating the obligation of Australian corporations at home and overseas whose activities, notably in the extractive sector, when carried out on the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples, have had a negative impact on Indigenous peoples’ rights to land, health, living environment and livelihoods (arts. 2, 4, 5).

In light of the Committee’s general recommendation 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Committee encourages the State party to take appropriate legislative or administrative measures to prevent acts of Australian corporations which negatively impact on the enjoyment of rights of indigenous peoples domestically and overseas and to regulate the extra-territorial activities of Australian corporations abroad. The Committee also encourages the State party to fulfil its commitments under the different international initiatives it supports to advance responsible corporate citizenship.

14. Noting with interest the changing demographics of the State party in recent decades, the Committee regrets that its multicultural policy (Multicultural Australia United in Diversity (2003-2006)) expired in 2006. It notes with concern reports highlighting ongoing issues of discrimination and inequity in access to and delivery of services experienced by members of certain minority communities including African communities, people of Asian, Middle Eastern and Muslim background, and in particular Muslim women (arts. 1, 2, 5).

The Committee encourages the State party to develop and implement an updated comprehensive multicultural policy that reflects its increasingly ethnically and culturally diverse society. The Committee requests the State party to include in its next periodic report information on its approach to multiculturalism and diversity in national policy. It recommends that the State party strengthen the race and cultural dimensions of its Social Inclusion Agenda, in particular by ensuring adequate resources for the development of strategies that respond to the specific needs of the diverse communities of the State party.

15. The Committee notes with appreciation the acknowledgement by the State party that Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders occupy a special place in its society as the first peoples of Australia and also welcomes the establishment of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples but is concerned this is only an advisory body representing member organizations and individuals and may not be fully representative of Australia’s First Peoples. The Committee regrets the limited progress towards Constitutional acknowledgement of Australia’s Indigenous peoples, and slow implementation of the principle of Indigenous peoples' exercising meaningful control over their affairs (arts. 1, 2, 5, 6).

Drawing the attention of the State party to the Committee’s general recommendation 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Committee reiterates its recommendation that the State party increase efforts to ensure a meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and that any measures to amend the Australian Constitution include the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as First Nations Peoples. In this regard, the Committee recommends that the State party consider the negotiation of a treaty agreement to build a constructive and sustained relationship with Indigenous peoples. The Committee also recommends that the State party provide the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples with the adequate resources to become fully operational by January 2011 and support its development.

16. The Committee expresses its concern that the package of legislation under the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) continues to discriminate on the basis of race as well as the use of so called “special measures” by the State party. The Committee regrets the discriminatory impact this intervention has had on affected communities including restrictions on Aboriginal rights to land, property, social security, adequate standards of living, cultural development, work, and remedies (arts. 1, 2, and 5).

The Committee urges the State party to fully reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act, including the use of the Act to challenge and provide remedies for racially discriminatory NTER measures. It also urges the State party to guarantee that all special measures in Australian law, in particular those regarding the NTER, are in accordance with the Committee’s general recommendation No. 32 on Special Measures (2009). It encourages the State party to strengthen its efforts to implement the NTER Review Board recommendations, namely that: it continue to address the unacceptably high level of disadvantage and social dislocation being experienced by Aboriginal Australians living in remote communities throughout the Northern Territory; that it reset the relationship with Aboriginal people based on genuine consultation, engagement and partnership; and that Government actions affecting the Aboriginal communities respect Australia's human rights obligations and conform with the Racial Discrimination Act.

17. The Committee reiterates its concern about the State party’s reservations to article 4 (a) of the Convention. It notes that acts of racial hatred are not criminalized throughout the State party, pursuant to article 4 of the Convention, and also that the Northern Territory still has not enacted legislation prohibiting incitement to racial hatred (art. 4).

In light of the Committee’s general recommendations No. 7 (1985) and No. 15 (1993), according to which article 4 is of mandatory nature, the Committee recommends the State party to remedy the absence of legislation to give full effect to the provisions against racial discrimination under article 4 and withdraw its reservation to article 4 (a) relating to criminalizing the dissemination of racist ideas, incitement to racial hatred or discrimination, and the provision of any assistance to racist activities. The Committee reiterates its request for information on complaints, prosecutions and sentences regarding acts of racial hatred or incitement to racial hatred in States and Territories with legislation specifying such offenses.

18. Reiterating in full its concern about the Native Title Act 1993 and its amendments, the Committee regrets the persisting high standards of proof required for recognition of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and their traditional lands, and the fact that in spite of large investment of time and resources by Indigenous peoples, many are unable to obtain recognition of their relationship to land (art. 5).

The Committee urges the State party to provide more information on this issue, and take the necessary measures to review the requirement of such a high standard of proof. The Committee is interested in receiving data on the extent to which the legislative reforms to the Native Title Act in 2009 will achieve “better native title claim settlements in a timely manner”. It also recommends that the State party enhance adequate mechanisms for effective consultation with Indigenous peoples around all policies affecting their lives and resources.

19. While welcoming recent initiatives taken by the State party in order to increase access to justice by Indigenous Australians, the Committee is concerned that the recent funding increase for Aboriginal legal aid may be inadequate to address the continued limited access by Indigenous peoples to legal specialist and interpretation services in a sustainable manner (art. 5, 6).

The Committee encourages the State party to increase funding for Aboriginal legal aid in real terms, as a reflection of its recognition of the essential role that professional and culturally appropriate Indigenous legal and interpretive services play within the criminal justice system. Moreover, it recommends that the State party strengthen training for law enforcement personnel and the legal profession in this regard.

20. While welcoming the endorsement of National Indigenous Law and Justice Framework by all Australian Governments, the Committee reiterates its concern about the disproportionate incarceration rates and the persisting problems leading to deaths in custody of a considerable number of Indigenous Australians over the years. The Committee expresses concern in particular about the growing imprisonment rates of Indigenous women as well as the substandard conditions in many prisons (art. 5, 6).

Taking into account the Committee’s general recommendation 31 (2006) on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system, the Committee recommends that the State party dedicate sufficient resources to address the social and economic factors underpinning Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system. It encourages the State party to adopt a justice reinvestment strategy, continuing and increasing the use of Indigenous courts and conciliation mechanisms, diversionary and prevention programs and restorative justice strategies. and that, in consultation with Indigenous communities, it take immediate steps to review the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, identifying those which remain relevant with a view to their implementation. The Committee also recommends that the State party implement the measures outlined in the National Indigenous Law and Justice Framework. The Committee encourages the State party to ensure the provision of adequate health care to prisoners.

21. The Committee welcomes the new national approach to preserve Indigenous languages but is concerned that no additional financial resources have been committed by the State party nor received by the Maintenance of Indigenous Languages and Records program for this new approach. The Committee is also highly concerned by the recent abolition of bilingual education funding by the Northern Territory Government in light of the precarious condition of many Indigenous languages, and the lack of adequate opportunities for children to receive instruction in or of their language (art. 2, 5).

The Committee encourages the State party to allocate adequate resources for the new national approach to preserve Indigenous languages. It recommends that the State party, in consultation with Indigenous communities, hold a national inquiry into the issue of bilingual education for Indigenous peoples. The Committee also recommends that the State party adopt all necessary measures to preserve native languages and develop and carry out programmes to revitalize indigenous languages and bilingual and intercultural education for Indigenous peoples respecting cultural identity and history. In line with the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, to which Australia is a party, the Committee encourages the State party to consider providing adequate opportunities for national minorities to the use and teaching of their own language.

22. While recognizing the steps taken by the State party to address socio-economic disadvantages of Indigenous people, the Committee reiterates its serious concern about the continued discrimination faced by Indigenous Australians in the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights (art. 5).

The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the State party ensure that resources allocated to eradicate socio-economic disparities are sufficient and sustainable. It recommends that all initiatives and programmes in this regard ensure the cultural appropriateness of public service delivery and that they seek to reduce Indigenous socio-economic disadvantage while advancing Indigenous self-empowerment.

23. The Committee is concerned by information related to the personal security of international students, and in particular, the series of racially motivated assaults and killings of Indian students in the state of Victoria. It regrets the failure by the Government and police (both at a state and federal level) to acknowledge the racial motivation of these acts, as well as the lack of available national data on the prevalence of migrants as victims of crime (arts. 2, 4, and 5).

The Committee recommends that the State party further intensify its efforts to combat racially motivated violence, including by requiring law enforcement authorities to collect data on the nationality and ethnicity of victims of such crimes and ensuring that judges, prosecutors and the police apply, in practice, existing legal provisions which consider the motive of ethnic, racial or religious hatred or enmity an aggravating circumstance. It recommends that the State party provide updated statistical data on the number and nature of reported hate crimes, prosecutions, convictions and sentences imposed on perpetrators, disaggregated by age, gender and national or ethnic origin of victims.

24. The Committee is concerned that “Excised Offshore Places” such as the immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island are removed from the operation of Australia’s migration legislation and that asylum seekers arriving by boat or intercepted before reaching the mainland without a valid visa are subject to improper processing arrangements and denied the full protections of the application and review procedures available on the mainland. The Committee is also concerned by the continued suspension of the processing of refugee status assessment procedures for applicants from certain countries, notably for Afghan asylum seekers, which lacks a legislative basis and is inconsistent with article 5 of the Convention. It regrets that the Australian High Court has found that it is lawful for a stateless person to be detained indefinitely. Finally, the Committee is concerned that children are still kept in detention-like conditions in various remote areas and at times, separate from their parents (art. 1, 2, 5).

Recalling its general recommendation No. 30 (2004) on discrimination against non-citizens, the Committee reiterates its view that States parties ensure that immigration policies do not have the effect of discriminating against persons on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. It recommends that the State party:

(a) review its mandatory detention regime of asylum seekers with a view to finding an alternative to detention, ensuring that the detention of asylum seekers is always a measure of last resort and is limited by statute to the shortest time reasonably necessary, and that all forms of arbitrary detention be avoided;

(b) expedite the removal of the suspension on processing visa applications from asylum seekers from Afghanistan and that it take the necessary measures to ensure standardized asylum assessment and review procedures and equal entitlement to public services by all asylum seekers, regardless of country of origin or mode of entry;

(c) develop appropriate reception arrangements, in particular for children;

(d) ensure in its domestic law, in accordance with article 5 (b), that the principle of non-refoulement is respected when proceeding with return of asylum-seekers to countries;

(e) accompany any changes in the processing of asylum claims with adequate protection standards for those asylum seekers whose protection is suspended.

(f) continue its cooperation with UNHCR in regard to the above.

25. The Committee regrets that no steps have been taken by the State party with regard to the Committee’s previous recommendation that the State party envisage reversing the burden of proof in civil proceedings involving racial discrimination to alleviate the difficulties faced by complainants in establishing the burden of proof (arts. 4 and 5).

The Committee recommends that as part of its harmonisation of federal anti-discrimination laws, the Racial Discrimination Act be amended, as far as civil proceedings are concerned, to require the complainant to prove prima facie discrimination, at which point the burden shifts to the respondent to prove no discrimination existed.

26. While noting with interest the range of compensation payment schemes that have been implemented or recommended for implementation in the State party, the Committee regrets the absence of appropriate compensation payment schemes for Stolen Generations and Stolen Wages, which is inconsistent with article 6 of the Convention (art. 6).

The Committee reiterates its recommendation to the State party to address appropriately and through a national mechanism past racially discriminatory practices including through the provision of adequate compensation to all involved.

27. The Committee reiterates that education plays a crucial role in promoting human rights and combating racism and notes with interest the national curriculum initiative for schools. However, it is concerned that the historical position, importance and contributions to Australian society of Indigenous peoples and those of other groups protected under the Convention may not be properly reflected in the proposed curriculum (art. 5, 7).

The Committee recommends that the State party take the necessary measures to ensure that the national curriculum conveys an accurate message regarding the contribution of all groups protected under the Convention to Australian society and reflects the principle of full participation and equality. In light of article 7 of the Convention, it also recommends that the State party include human rights education in the national curriculum. The Committee also encourages the State party to ensure that an anti-racism strategy be established under the new Human Rights Framework and that an education program for all Australians, as per the recommendations of the Human Rights Consultation Report, with particular reference to combating discrimination, prejudice and racism be adopted.

28. Bearing in mind the indivisibility of all human rights, the Committee encourages the State party to consider ratifying those international human rights treaties which it has not yet ratified, in particular treaties the provisions of which have a direct bearing on the subject of racial discrimination, such as the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990), the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; and ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries.

29. In light of its general recommendation No. 33 (2009) on follow-up to the Durban Review Conference, the Committee recommends that the State party give effect to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted in September 2001 by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, taking into account the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, held in Geneva in April 2009, when implementing the Convention in its domestic legal order. The Committee requests that the State party include in its next periodic report specific information on action plans and other measures taken to implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action at the national level.

30. The Committee recommends that the State party continue consulting and expanding its dialogue with organizations of civil society working in the area of human rights protection, in particular in combating racial discrimination, in connection with the preparation of the next periodic report.

31. The Committee recommends that the State party’s reports be made readily available and accessible to the public at the time of their submission, and that the observations of the Committee with respect to these reports be similarly publicized in the official and other commonly used languages, as appropriate.

32. In accordance with article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention and rule 65 of its amended rules of procedure, the Committee requests the State party to provide information, within one year of the adoption of the present conclusions, on its follow-up to the recommendations contained in paragraphs 11, 16, 23 above.

33. The Committee also wishes to draw the attention of the State party to the particular importance of recommendations 18, 22 and 26 and request the State party to provide detailed information in its next periodic report on concrete measures taken to implement these recommendations.

34. The Committee recommends that the State party submit its 18th and 19th periodic reports in a single document, due on 30 October 2012 taking into account the guidelines for the CERD-specific document adopted by the Committee during its seventy-first session (CERD/C/2007/1), and that it address all points raised in the present concluding observations. The Committee also urges the State party to observe the page limit of 40 pages for treaty-specific reports and 60-80 pages for the common core document (see harmonized guidelines for reporting contained in document HRI/GEN.2/Rev.6, para. 19).




Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Victoria police (Disco enforcers) crack down on outdoor fun.


Below is a statement from a party goer, cracked down on by the Victoria police for the crime of public gathering.


So it turned out to be an eye opening weekend. I went to work at a party that was going to be held illegally under the west gate bridge. Due to some silly stuff ups the rangers found out about the party and it was shut down before it began. A fleet of police cars arrived and informed the crew that the party was not going to go ahead. However they decided to relocate and so set up began at a new site in Richmond down near the Yarra. After a few hours of setting up during which there was only one fly over by the police in a chopper the site was almost ready for the party to begin. That’s when the next police response began that escalated to some of the most drastic police activity I have witnessed in Melbourne outside of protests. Initially two squad cars arrived and there was the usual banter between ‘organisers’ and officers that of course led to the party once more being told it could not go ahead. However instead of following the usual sort of track of this sort of conversation followed by some fines or just a ‘clear off’ please they decided to call in ‘back up’.

Over the next 20 minutes a large number of squad cars arrived and the road was blocked so no one new could get in but those of us down on site could not get out. Then one of the large ‘brawler’ vans arrived and a number of officers began to climb out and kit up including the black jumpsuit clad ones that tend to roam as paramilitaries amongst our police these days. At that point a dog squad also arrived. Not a drug sniffing dog squad but Alsatian attack dogs purely there for ‘crowd dispersal’. After intimidating the site like this for about half an hour the majority of the stages began packing up and so the cops eventually left. One stage however had remained set up and after about an hour as we packed up they switched on and obviously word got out that the party was still going as hundreds of punters began to roll in. The police returned about an half an hour into this and informed everyone that they would come back in force if the paddock was not cleared immediately. They left and as I was stuck in the paddock waiting for a car to return I had an inkling that things would turn sour.

But the other stage now had there backs up and in hindsight it was a bit stupid of them but they fired up there system again and quite a nice little party gathered for the next 50 minutes. Now in the past such an action would have incurred fines and further discussion but this night it was all about brutality. The police arrived about 50 minutes later once more sealed off the site so no one could get in and out and came in hard. They formed a cordon and swept the area punching at people as they aggressively cleansed the site. There was at least one arrest as they dragged a tripper in Halloween costume off to the divvy van. The system was shut off and much of the crowd fled. I was lucky enough to talk my way out of being arrested so I could remain with gear that was still left in the paddock and make sure it was not impounded. As one car drove out it was stopped and I saw one of the commanding officers lean in and have words with the driver before letting him go. As the car sped off he turned back to the line of men under his control and yelled out “That one was a Lebbo I think. He was one of those Lebanese”. The dripping hatred in his voice as he said it was astonishing. Finally they cleared out leaving me and a skeleton crew packing down the last system.

I was finally picked up and we headed over to a friends in Collingwood. He lives on Easey street just off Smith Street. A warehouse there about two doors down was having a Halloween party. They claimed in the media that they were expecting 25 people but 500 turned up. Now whether this was because the other party was shut down and now there were hundreds of people looking for somewhere to go is I guess speculation but it may have been a contributing factor. It was once again a lovely crowd albeit large but your standard Northcote hippie type crowd all jolly and happy. As we drove into the street they were milling across the entire street and they happily moved aside to let our vehicle through. About half an hour after arriving we heard a disturbance had begun outside. It turned out that the entire RIOT SQUAD in full kit shields and batons and all had arrived and was sweeping the street. They declared that Easey street was a cleared area. I raced out of course to watch and witnessed people who lived on Easey street trying to get back into the homes being brutally thrown to the ground and told by the police that as this was now a cleared area they had to disperse to Smith street and were not allowed back into there homes until some hours later. So now apparently Victoria Police has the power to stop you from entering your own premises. Meanwhile inside the warehouse the party had been happening in which was now also sealed off (same tactic they had used up in Richmond) the brutal beatings were continuing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me-JruDzxmg

So it’s good to know that Victoria police is continuing its slide into complete depravity. And still no one in government calls for or allows a royal commission. So you can be a banker and take part in the worlds largest bank heist and you get a bonus. You can be a minimum wage earner who just wants to go out for a drink with your fellow slave after a hard week working for the bankers and there Militia WILL come and beat on you now.
video

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Natural remedies on their way to being outlaws.

CODEX IN A NUTSHELL
: Codex have declared that nutrients are now illegal toxins which is a main factor which will allow Codex to devastate the health AND Organic food industries globally, in a move to make only pharmaceutical drugs and petrochemical pesticides the only option for humans in the 21 cebntury.

This will be implemented on DECEMBER 21st 2009 unless we convince our governments to not become CODEX COMPLIANT known as CA compliant. unless activists worldwide create resistance against this we will lose the freedom to use alternative medicine, nutritional suppliments, organic food AND they are proposing to re-legalise nine very harmful pesticides which have been banned for 60 years in 176 countries. AS you read remember American corporations dictate agri-business pesticides and food biotech products worldwise and ...
SO THIS AFFECTS YOU AND EVERYONE YOU KNOW
Please FORWARD THIS MESSAGE / TELL FRIENDS / INFORM LOCAL MEDIA PUBLICATIONS / COMMUNITY RADIO there is little over 12 weeks left.
to find out how to help in other ways than already suggested visit
www.healthfreedomusa.org

CODEX IN DETAIL

Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code)
Summarized in 7 Points

HealthFreedomUSA.org, the website of the Natural Solutions Foundation, is beholden to no one: our only interest is health freedom. Rima E. Laibow, MD, successful natural medicine physician since the 1970s, has studied 16,000 pages of Codex documentation. Her conclusion is that people who say that Codex is “consumer protection”, “voluntary”, or “harmless” are, at best, seriously mistaken.

Codex in Depth: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=161
1) Started in 1962 by UN, Imposed by WTO Sanctions

Codex Alimentarius was created in 1962 as a trade Commission by the UN to control the international trade of food. Its initial intentions may have been altruistic but it has been taken over by corporate interests, most notably the pharmaceutical, pesticide, biotechnology and chemical industries.

Codex Alimentarius is backed up by the crippling trade sanctions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Any non Codex-compliant nation would face huge economic punishment since they would automatically lose in any food-trade dispute with a Codex compliant country.
2) “Nutrients are Toxins” Is Junk Science

Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has two committees which impact nutrition.

One of them, the “Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), is chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, a physician who believes that nutrition has no role in health. This is the “top-guy” for Codex nutritional policy, and he has stated that “nutrition is not relevant to health”.

As unbelievable as it may sound, Dr. Grossklaus actually declared nutrients to be toxins in 1994 and instituted the use of toxicology (Risk Assessment) to prevent nutrients from having any impact on humans who take supplements! It is worth mentioning that Dr. Grossklaus happens to own the Risk Assessment company advising CCNFSDU and Codex on this issue. This company makes money when its toxicology services are used for the “assessment” of nutrients. Here in the U.S. we call that a “conflict of interest”.

Codex is made up of thousands of standards and guidelines. One of them, the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), is designed to permit only ultra low doses of vitamins and minerals (and make clinically effective nutrients illegal). How can the VMG restrict dosages of vitamins and minerals? By using Risk Assessment (toxicology) to assess nutrients.

While Risk Assessment is a legitimate science (it is a branch of toxicology), it is the wrong science for assessing nutrients! In fact, in this context, it is actually junk science. Biochemistry, the science of life processes, is the correct science for assessing nutrients. Codex Alimentarius treats nutrients as toxins, which is literally insane.

Nutrients are not toxins – they are essential for life.

No matter what Codex Alimentarius officials say to convince you that Risk Assessment is a “science-based” approach to nutrients, it is not.

And it is worth repeating that Dr. Grossklaus, the head of Codex Alimentarius, owns the Risk Assessment company advising CCNFSDU and Codex on the “benefit” of using Risk Assessment to assess nutrients.
3) Not Consumer Protection – That’s Propaganda

Contrary to the propaganda, Codex Alimentarius has nothing to do with consumer protection. Nothing! Codex is about the economic ambitions of multi-national corporations, in particular, the pharmaceutical industry.

Using their multi billion-dollar marketing budgets, these industries have launched a massive media propaganda campaign to paint Codex Alimentarius as a benevolent tool of “consumer protection”, as well as to negatively taint the image of natural health options and mislead people to fear them as “dangerous”, so they will take drugs (which really are dangerous). Natural health products and options have an amazing safety record and are remarkably effective, especially when compared to pharmaceutical drugs.

Unfortunately, one-time defenders of health freedom such as National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) have joined the propaganda bandwagon and are spreading false information saying that Codex Alimentarius is either “harmless” or benevolent “consumer protection”. Neither is true.

The membership of these one-time defenders of health freedom has become permeated by people from the pharmaceutical industry (for example, CRN counts as its members corporations such as Monsanto® and Bayer®).
4) Codex: Serious Threat to Health and Health Freedom

If Codex Alimentarius is implemented in the United States of America, therapeutic dosages of vitamins and minerals (and all other nutrients soon to follow) will become unavailable because they will literally become illegal.

Here’s how it would work, in a nut-shell:

Due to the junk science use of Risk Assessment (toxicology) to assess supposedly toxic nutrients, a false belief is being engineered saying that “nutritional supplements are dangerous to people’s health”.

Using this false belief generates calls to “protect” people from these “toxic” nutrients. After the calls come the bills to set ultra low permissible dosages (remember, nutrients are deemed “dangerous toxins” under this false belief). If enough of us and our Congressional delegates buy this nonsense, we and Congress would blindly comply with Codex Alimentarius’ VMG. And blind compliance is what the industries behind Codex Alimentarius intend.

Blind compliance goes hand-in-hand with lack of activism. This lack of activism allows our protective laws, classifying nutrients as foods with no upper limits (such as DSHEA), to be easily repealed and replaced with draconian laws to classify nutrients as toxins. And “harmonization” with the pro-illness, pro-pharmaceutical industry Vitamin and Mineral Guideline is there to fill the void.

Only intentionally ineffective, ultra low dose supplements would be legal, with or without a prescription, on the VMG list. If enough people do not take action, we can expect to watch nutritional supplement manufacturers and, thus health food stores, to go out of business, in a domino effect. The only player left standing would be Big Pharma.

Therapeutic grade vitamins, minerals, and amino acids would be eliminated from the marketplace (although a few low-dose supplements would be allowed by Codex, as a symbolic measure to avoid suspicion about their ulterior motive).

Natural health professionals would lose the tools of their trade (nutritional supplements) and health conscious people would be unable to choose natural health options for health promotion and disease treatment.

And that is, in a nutshell, how Codex Alimentarius is poised to make Natural and Nutritional Medicine (NNM) disappear from the legal health world and go underground. Who benefits? Big Pharma.

It would take a few years for the above scenarios to be feasible (Codex Alimentarius is meant to go into full global effect by 2010). The slower the process takes, the less alarmed people will be. That’s probably the logic of the architects of Codex Alimentarius.
5) Serves Economic Interests of Sickness Industries Through WTO and Napoleonic Code

More and more people are turning to natural health products globally. The “wellness” trend is a major trend in today’s society. The more natural health products people use, the fewer drugs they buy. The pharmaceutical industry, which is part of the “Sickness Industry”, fears the inevitable shift toward natural health care.

Instead of accepting the will of the people and rethinking the future of the pharmaceutical industry, the industry has decided upon an unethical course of action: the use of deception and deceit to eliminate natural health products completely.

Codex Alimentarius is a shrewd vehicle for protecting the pharmaceutical industry from the loss of income it stands to suffer due to the inevitable growth of natural healthcare.

Codex Alimentarius is the resistance of the dinosaurs to inevitability: the burgeoning desire of humanity for a healthier, saner, and more sustainable way of life.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) intends to force Codex Alimentarius upon the nations of the world, including the U.S. This would be done under the threat of massive economic sanctions if WTO-countries do not comply with Codex Alimentarius.

Furthermore, Codex is based in the Napoleonic Code, not Common Law. That means that under Codex Alimentarius, anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. Under Common Law, we hold that anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted. The difference is the difference between health freedom and health tyranny. Codex Alimentarius would be able to ban supplements by default.
6) DSHEA Protects America From Codex Alimentarius

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA, 1994), an American law classifying our supplements and herbs as foods (which can have no upper limit set on their use), was passed by unanimous Congressional consent following massive grass-roots support organized by health food stores. Millions of American activists told Congress, in no uncertain terms:

“Protect nutritional supplements as foods or we will remove you from office”.

Congress listened and carried out the will of the people.

DSHEA appropriately classifies nutritional supplements as foods which can have no upper limits set on their use. DSHEA recognizes that people use nutrients safely to deal with their individually differing needs for nutrients. The concept of biochemical individuality means that people have different needs for nutrients at different times. Are nutrients toxins? No, they are not toxins. They are substances essential to prevent, treat and cure any chronic condition, in differing doses at different times in different people.

DSHEA protects the US from Codex Alimentarius’ deadly Vitamin and Mineral Guideline. We must reach our Congressional members, educate them about the facts on Codex Alimentarius and direct them to vote against anything that would threaten DSHEA.

Congress holds the keys to our health freedom. And it is their job to listen to us. Let’s not allow cynicism to tell us otherwise. We did it for DSHEA in 1994. We can do it again this year.
7) Your Action is Needed Now!

DSHEA is under significant legislative attack right now. Your letter-writing is crucial: if the members of Congress know that voting against health freedom means losing their jobs come election time, they will listen. Our job is to make sure they get the message loud and clear. Take action via our 3 easy steps and send personalized emails to Congress right now.

After taking action on HealthFreedomUSA.org, consider getting together with others in your area and visit your Congressional members in their home offices. If we wait, we lose our health freedoms. Once we “HARMonize” with Codex, by the way, we no longer have the right, while we belong to the WTO, to repeal or change that “HARMonization”!
Conclusion

The objective of the pro-Codex Alimentarius multi nationals is to “boil the frog slowly” so that we do not wake up to it in time to avoid Codex.

Once we have “HARMonize” to Codex Alimentarius, as long as we are in the WTO, we cannot amend or change what we’ve been “HARMonize” to.

Codex Alimentarius will go into global implementation by December 31, 2009, unless We, the People, avert it. We must act now because right now, with $758 Million spent on declared Congressional lobbying by Big Pharma last year, there are members of Congress who are trying to overturn DSHEA and allow Pharma-friendly free reign for Codex. If protective laws like DSHEA are destroyed, the sanctioning power of the autocratic WTO kicks in, and it will be impossible to get out from under Codex Alimentarius. We can protect our access to high potency nutrients and stave off an adulterated food supply only by putting pressure on Congress.

If you would like more in-depth information about Codex Alimentarius before taking action, please click here.

DID YOU KNOW:

The Natural Solutions Foundation meets regularly with foreign Heads of State, Ministers of Health, National Codex Committee members, journalists and health freedom/consumer advocates to alert them to their options in dealing with the threat Codex represents to their food security and safety and educate them about the power and protection inherent in implementing the protective Codex Two Step Process.