By Injustice posted 6 October 05
Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser says Australians could be treated unfairly under the Government's anti-terrorism laws unless a human rights act is introduced.
But correct me if I'm wrong the governments anti-liberty laws should not be introduced regardless because they're draconian.
Mr Fraser made the comments at Sydney's Town Hall, where he was helping to launch a draft Australian bill of human rights.
The former prime minister says the common law does not protect the normal rights of Australians, and the new anti-terrorism llaws threaten liberties that people take for granted.
"To be arrested under these powers - they don't say arrested, they say detained - the authorities or ASIO only needs to believe that you may know something which is relevant to something to do with terrorism," he said.
"They don't have to believe that you are guilty of anything."
Mr Fraser also compared parts of the proposed new anti-terrorism legislation, agreed to by state and Commonwealth leaders last month, to South Africa's apartheid laws.
"Some parts of the control orders seem to me to be very similar to the banning orders which was universally condemned in relation to apartheid in South Africa," he said.
'Standing alone'
Online magazine and policy portal New Matilda unveiled the draft human rights bill at Sydney's Town Hall before speeches by Mr Fraser and ACTU secretary Greg Combet.
Campaign chair and former Hawke government minister Susan Ryan says Australia stands alone amongst Western democracies in its lack of a bill of rights.
"Every person in Australia, every Australian, and all others living here have, as human beings, a range of rights. Those rights need to be protected by Australian law. They are not," she said.
"Australia is now the only Western country without legislated protection of human rights. This lack of a human rights act is a massive gap in our legal machinery."
Those behind the draft bill hope federal MPs and senators will consider it as a viable document important to Australia's future.
Related:
By Maria Becker posted 6 October 05
How stupid are the Americans? Why are they fooled by their government's energy policy? Many Links to renewable energy web sites.
IS THIS YOUR ENERGY POLICY?
(from United States of America - copy of american professor's newspaper letter to the public)
OUR LOVE AFFAIR WITH THE AUTOMOBILE
We've been depending on the internal combustion engine (ICE) for more than 100 years and over all that time the efficiency of the ICE has climbed to just under 15%. The remaining 85% is waste heat, unfired combustibles.
YOUR PERSONAL COST?
For every $10 bill you put in your gas tank, $8.50 is wasted. It's not that 85% of that gasoline didn't produce anything, it means that only 15% was used to turn the wheels. The 85% produced waste heat, unburned chemicals.
THE HIDDEN STICKER COST?
We're addicted. And an addict will do most anything to satisfy their addiction. Money will be found, people might get hurt, and we'll make deals with anyone to get what we want. We depend on foreign imports for over 50% of our oil. If this sounds familiar it's because it's the same scenario that preceded the "Energy Crisis" more than 20 years ago.
THE ENERGY CRISIS WAS A SET UP
Our trusted trading partners (the dealers) flooded the market with cheap gasoline (the drug) and we (the addicts) of course just started using more. Then they cut the supply and raised prices. The cost to the nation was incredible. The cost to Detroit and the Big 3 was even worse. Suddenly, there was a market for smaller, high mileage cars and Japan was there to take that market.
D?J? VU IN 1999? We're importing about the same, still making deals with anyone, the drug is cheaper than it's ever been (adjusted for inflation), we're using more (SUV's), and driving more than ever. It's obvious we don't have a clue.
DON'T GET CAUGHT BETWEEN AN ADDICT AND HIS DRUG!
Saddam Hussien was a dealer. We knew he was unstable and couldn't be trusted, but he was OUR dealer. We depended on him. Things you normally wouldn't even think about doing aren't an obstacle when you're addicted.
When Saddam moved in on Kuwait (another dealer) our supply was threatened. It was war. Our addiction is so strong we are willing to send our own children to war for gasoline.
Most drug addicts wouldn't go that far but for us it's a logical step. We were willing to use up natural resources regardless of the consequences. We were willing to pollute the air, the land and the water. Our kids can see their air.
As kids we dreamed of the day we'd get our drivers license. The fact that we're willing to sacrifice lives for gasoline is unthinkable, but that is our policy and what it says about our values is worse. We pay more for a gallon of coke, than a gallon of gasoline. Or do we?
THE PRICE AT THE PUMP
The cost of gasoline at the pump includes a tax which is meant for infrastructure.
COSTS NOT INCLUDED AT THE PUMP:
Value of clean air?
Value of clean rivers, lakes, ponds, drinking water?
Value of Natural Resources?
Value of quality of life?
Cost of military defense of "our" oil ?
USER PAYS?
The cost of our military defense of our oil is a tangible amount. It's estimated that if that cost were included, the price of oil from the Middle East would be $100 per barrel. The cost at the pump would be at least $3 per gallon. Instead of including that cost in taxes at the pump, it's being paid by every taxpayer regardless of whether they drive or not or how many miles they drive. Instead of a tax policy that promotes efficiency, we build the best highway system in the world but not the best schools. Our tax code allows corporations such as Exxon a tax deduction for the cost to clean up the oil spill from the Valdez.
The CAFE standards were introduced to increase automobile efficiency but due to industry lobbying these standards have been frozen for the past 5 years and Congress just did it again in 1999.
LET THE MARKET DICTATE COST
This can only happen when the true cost of gasoline is levied at the pump. This is also known as a tax shift and in this case we'll pay those taxes at the pump and not from payroll deductions.
The increase in the cost of gas would raise demand for high mileage (energy efficient) automobiles. Manufacturers, using currently available technology can and would build cars whose efficiency would eliminate the need to import oil. This would go a long way toward eliminating our trade imbalance as well as eliminating national security risks due to our dependence on foriegn imports.
In the end, the environment is improved. Although we've grown up believing that it's every American's God given right to drive an automobile, the truth is that everyone has the right to breathe clean air.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
It doesn't make any sense that this issue is even being debated. What was sold to the taxpayer was the promise of "energy so cheap it you couldn't even meter it". What we have instead is the most expensive electricity, without including the cost for decommissioning or the unknown cost of nuclear waste.
OPERATING COSTS
These of course are passed on to you but be aware that you also contributed more than 50 BILLION dollars for it's development.
WASTE COSTS - YOURS
Here's the Nuclear Waste policy: Remove nuclear waste from nuclear plants all over the country and transport it through most every state, within 1/2 mile of more than 50 million citizens and store it anywhere we can regardless of what the locals residents have to say.
The US Congress is moving ahead with the development of a nuclear waste site in Nevada over the objections of not only the citizens of Nevada but their Senators and Representatives as well. The project will also violate EPA regulations.
BENEFIT VERSUS RISK
Sure we take risks all the time just crossing the street. If your crossing the street to get to work your risk of getting hit by a car is low if you're a law abiding pedestrian. You took a small risk and received a large benefit .. you made it to work and won't be fired today.
The problem with nuclear is we get all the risk and no benefit.
By law nuclear waste becomes the property of the US taxpayer. It's your problem now. The nuclear plant will one day be decommissioned, dismantled and also become your property.
Do you want the waste? Do the folks that produced that waste want it? If nobody wants it ? don't make it.
WHY MOVE WASTE?
A nuclear plant is a nuclear waste dump. Why create another and then take the risk of moving it all over the country?
CONCLUSION:
Why be foolish and reckless like the Americans? You can choose an intelligent and responsible energy policy using sustainable technology. Sustainable technology creates long term economic growth with more jobs, a clean environment and healthy people. Are you going to follow the ignorant Americans? Are you stupid?
[email protected]
http://www.bhopal.net
I N T E R N A T I O N A L* C A M P A I G N *F O R J U S T I C E
