Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Religious Leaders Push Back Against Australia’s Controversial Speech Bill

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 21, 2024

Australia’s “misinformation and disinformation” bill is being criticized by several Christian and Muslim leaders, concerned about the way its provisions might negatively influence religious discourse.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is designed to give the government’s communications and media regulator ACMA new powers regarding enforcement of rules that concern online content.

Some reports describe those powers as “broad” and the language of the proposed law also comes across as vague – the word “reasonably verifiable” is there to describe when content can be branded as misleading, false, deceptive, or is “reasonably likely” to cause serious harm.

That the bill excludes “content shared for religious purposes” was not enough to put Australia’s religious leaders’ minds at ease.

For one, platforms must use a number of tests related to “reasonableness” (of content being false, misleading, harmful, etc.), and the process could undermine the exception as these companies can be “reasonably” expected to censor more than necessary, in order to avoid paying fines.

In addition, online religious content will be subject to stricter rules than that which is offline, the signatories of a submission believe, and see the standard of “reasonableness” falling “far below Australia’s obligations under international human rights instruments.”

“We have significant concerns about the overall effect of the Bill on the free dissemination of ideas in the public sphere—in particular, religious speech and debate,” reads the document signed by the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia, the Shia Muslim Council of Australia, Australian Baptist Ministries, Presbyterian Church of Australia, Seventh Day Adventist Church of Australia, Hillsong Australia.

The submission was joined by the New South Wales (NSW) Council of Churches, and the Christian Schools Association.

The signatories state that the bill “places significant constraints on digital communications platform providers and incentivizes them to over-censor content on the possibility that it might be ‘harmful’.”

And despite “religious purposes content” being excluded, Australia’s religious leaders fear that the way the future law defines “misinformation” and “disinformation” is broad enough to allow ACMA to go after what they call “legitimate, good faith expression of religious, moral, and political opinions.”

Another submission against the bill came from Christ the Good Shepherd Church, which was in April the site of a stabbing attack when a priest was wounded. The authorities then used this incident to beat the “online disinformation” drum even harder and press for more censorship.

But this Church opposes such an approach, calling it out for exploiting tragic events for “political gain.”

“The attempt to manipulate public discourse by using this incident is deeply troubling on the state of politics in Australia,” Father Daniel wrote on behalf of the Church.

But, the bill also has its supporters – one being the Uniting Church in Australia Synod of Victoria and Tasmania.

October 21, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The Misinformation Bill will harm Australians and protect bad governments

JoNova | September 30, 2024

The Misinformation Bill is not just wholly unnecessary, it’s an abject travesty. How did such a preposterous overbearing, undemocratic, anti-science and dangerous piece of legislation get past the first focus group? It wouldn’t survive a high-school debate, and yet, here it is?

Misinformation is easy to correct when you own a billion dollar news agency, most academics, institutions, expert committees and 25% of the economy. The really hard thing, even with all that power and money is to defend an absurd lie and stop people pointing it out, which is surely the main purpose of the Misinformation Bill amendments. The government can already correct any misinformation that really matters, so these amendments curtail our freedom of speech for no benefit at all.

Guilty until proven innocent?

The amendments turn free speech on its head — instead of having the implicit right to criticize the government, everyone now needs to prove to some judge that their views are “reasonably” satire, or reasonable dissemination for an “academic, scientific or religious” purpose, and that their “motive” is honest and their behaviour is “authentic”.

When it comes to reasonableness in a democracy the highest court should be the court of public opinion, but how can the people decide if they are not allowed to hear it?

How is it even a democracy still if the government is allowed to take our money to force feed us the government’s view on the ABC and in every captured university (dependent on government funds), but the people cannot even reply through sheer unfunded creative wit?

This legislation puts a very unfree cloud over all groups, forums, blogs, and social media.

The fines (and all legal fees today) are so obscenely, disproportionately harmful to Australians that few will risk going to court, instead the platforms will be preemptively second guessing what a judge might say is reasonable, and people with serious social media accounts will be second guessing the second-guesses of their platform controllers in fear that they might be thrown off, and lose years of work if they guess wrongly.

Worse, the big platforms, supposedly so “independent” will become unaccountable but de facto arms of the government. The platforms will know if they don’t perform as expected and favorably to the incumbent masters, that the rules will get more onerous, the fines bigger. And thus and verily the unholy alliance of Big-Tech and Big-Government will become Big-Brother in your conversations, and Big Bankrupter in your nightmares.

The government claim they are not censoring anyone, but it’s just done at arms length with “implausible” deniability. Obviously the laws will censor all of us who are not already controlled by ACMA or the government through a public salary, a grant, or a Code of Practice written into the the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act.

Who silences the government misinformation, then?

We were there when the government experts told us margarine with hydrogenated fake vegetable fat would be great for our hearts. We heard them when they told us an ice age was coming, and antibiotics were useless against stomach ulcers. We noticed they told us to hold off on the peanut butter for babies to prevent allergies, only to find out that all these things were misinformation.

What happens when the experts are wrong, but the people who are unconvinced can’t speak up because they might “harm… the efficacy of a preventative health measure”? These health measures may take a … lifetime… to even measure the efficacy. Does the government get a free pass for 40 years?

It was estimated dietary trans fats (found in margarine) were killing 82,000 people a year in the US. (Danaei et al 2009). Should we have fined all the people who talked about this, and perhaps delayed things, and killed a half a million more? Someone speaking against hydrogenated margarine could have been deemed to be spreading “misinformation causing harm to public health in Australia”. So 20 years later, they turn out to be right — will the government compensate the families of the dead who might have chosen a different sandwich spread had they heard another opinion and been able to make up their own mind?

Will Facebook and Twitter need to block the accounts of experts who were wrong? Or, are there two kinds of citizens in Australia — one sort that work for the government, who can give their opinions and get things wrong without losing their right to speak, and the Untermenschen, who cannot speak, even if they are right?

Confidence has to be earned, not ordered

Apparently the citizens of Australia are not allowed to say anything that might harm the confidence in the banking system or the financial markets. But if our banking system is so fragile, or our currency so fake, that it needs a law to force people to “feel confident” then we are in a trouble already.

Nothing damages confidence like making a law to silence critics.

As adults, we filter misinformation our whole lives, it’s our job

We are all adults in this room, and we have lived our whole lives filtering out advertising spin, ignoring political lies, and reading books telling us we can stop storms if we just ride a bike. Since the stone-age we’ve spent our lives climbing from one misinformation-swamp to another, but as adults, it’s our job to figure it out. Free will and all. How dare you treat us like children.

And even the children about to enter the room have to learn how to deal with misinformation. How exactly can we teach them, if the government serves up one permitted line to protect us from accidentally hearing something “wrong”?

It’s not just that this misinformation bill is egregiously wrong, it’s that we shouldn’t have one at all in the first place.

REFERENCES

Danaei et al (2009) The preventable causes of death in the United States: comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors, PLoS Med, . 2009 Apr 28;6(4):e1000058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000058. Epub 2009 Apr 28.

October 6, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Biden’s Last QUAD summit: All substance and no real Action

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – September 27, 2024

When Biden hosted the leaders of the Quadrilateral Security Group (QUAD) from India, Australia, and Japan in the US in 2021, they did not directly mention China. Still, the emphasis on “shared security and prosperity” was an unmistakable reference to a joint mechanism to counter Beijing’s influence in the Indo-Pacific, particularly.

One would have expected the Biden administration to leave a legacy of a significantly functional mechanism producing collective security and prosperity at the end of its era in 2024. But, as it turns out, QUAD remains where it was in 2021: a club that hosts little more than tea parties to mean anything. The club, as the Indian Prime Minister remarked after the latest summit, is “here to stay”. The question, however, is: will it, or can it, turn into more than a club for occasional gatherings to talk about abstract geopolitics? It is quite unlikely. Donald Trump’s victory will dampen it even further. If Harris wins, she is unlikely to introduce any major changes from the Biden administration, for obvious reasons (she is currently part of the same administration!).

The Last Summit: What is new?

The last summit is, therefore, no different from the earlier ones insofar as it offers little more than a set of “commitments”, and occasional references to “unity”, “democracy” and certain joint ventures, such as Maritime Initiative for Training in the Indo-Pacific (MAITRI). Apparently a new initiative, MAITRI is backed by little to nothing actionable and concrete. It aims to equip partner countries with “tools” that they will use “to monitor and secure their waters, enforce their laws, and deter unlawful behavior”. Who will fund this initiative? What counts as “unlawful behaviour” and what exact action will be taken against those involved in any unlawful activity are some of the ‘black holes’ that need massive filling before this initiative can qualify to acquire any geostrategic significance. There are other concerns too.

While the joint statement mentions China several times, it does not mention Russia at all. Although it refers to Ukraine, the fact that it does not refer to Russia is due to the nature of Indian ties with Moscow. What does this mean for the future of QUAD? No references to any threats other than those emerging from, or associated with, China leave QUAD a club squarely and singularly focused on China. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage?

The China Factor

Being squarely anti-China means QUAD can never sell itself to the wider region as a framework of security. Had QUAD been a general framework of security, it could have attracted several other countries from the region. However, it is unable to do this because a large number of countries in the region do not wish to gang up against China due to the nature of their ties with Beijing. For instance, there is probably not a single example where a country from this region, which is not a QUAD member, ever endorsed anything QUAD said or did. In other words, QUAD operates in a disconnected regional space as an abstract idea rather than as a force to be reckoned with.

This is despite the fact that the latest QUAD summit categorically said China is “testing us”. Conversely, QUAD is “testing” China, but China’s advantage is that it does not have many real regional rivals. That includes India too.

Now, PM Modi thinks that QUAD is here to stay, but the exact purpose it will serve for him is far from clear to other QUAD members. Consider the bilateral trade volume, for instance. It has already reached US$118 billion in 2024. Despite so-called “tensions”, the overall trade grew by 1.5 per cent in terms of year-on-year growth. More significantly, QUAD downplays the role – and the possibility – of regional countries utilising bilateral channels for dispute resolution. Is QAUD the only mechanism that, for instance, PM Modi might depend upon in the wake of another border clash with China?

Bilateralism Trumps QUAD’s Multilateralism

Let’s see what both India and China have done in the past two years. Instead of relying on QUAD, New Delhi happens to have preferred meetings and regular interaction with China at the Corps Commander level. According to data shared by India’s Ministry of Home Affairs, 21 meetings have been held until February 2024. None of these meetings either involved any third party, nor did New Delhi stress a multilateral approach for ‘effective’ dispute resolution. The Indian readout stressed the friendly and amicable nature of talks.

This is not the only mechanism. Since 2012, the Working Mechanism for Consultation & Coordination (WMCC) on India-China Border Affairs has been another key bilateral avenue of dispute resolution, and it has remained relevant despite the border clashes. On August 29, the WMCC held its 31st meeting. The meeting’s aim was “to narrow down the differences and find early resolution of the outstanding issues”.

Now, the emphasis on narrowing down existing differences not only signals success, but also the willingness to remain nonviolent in their approaches to conflict resolution. Nonviolence directly implies the irrelevance of the securitised approach of the QUAD vis-à-vis China’s position in the Indo-Pacific.

There is, in simple words, a lesson for countries in the region. Many countries in Southeast Asia, for instance, have concerns about China’s dominance in the South and East China seas. Should they opt for a military approach considering that India, a much bigger military power than any country in Southeast Asia, is itself following dialogue and diplomacy to resolve disputes? The lesson, in other words, is to emphasise bilateral approach and talk directly to China.

All of these factors combine to produce the utter inability of QUAD to evolve, since its establishment in 2004, as a significant military or economic alliance. Much to Washington’s disappointment, it still does not have a regional mechanism to ‘contain’ China.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

September 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Russia-China grains corridor will completely displace the US, Canada, Australia, and France

Inside China Business | August 31, 2024

Russia and China are developing a transnational grains corridor, connecting Russia’s enormous agricultural production to export markets in China, South Asia, and the Middle East. When complete, Russian production and shipments on this network will exceed 8 million tons per year. China is the world’s largest importer of wheat and grains, and in 2023 imported over 6 million tons of wheat from the United States, Canada, Australia, and France.

Large distribution hubs are being completed in China’s Northern and Central provinces, which will further transport Russian food exports within China, and on to other Asian countries.

The proposed BRICS grains exchange enjoys wide support across the bloc, and will accelerate the decoupling of Global South markets from the Western banking and trading systems, to the detriment of farmers in North America and Europe.

Resources and links:

The Sino-Russian Land Grain Corridor and China’s Quest for Food Security https://asiasociety.org/policy-instit…

BRICS countries back grain exchange idea, Russia says https://gulfbusiness.com/brics-countr…

Russia, China agree to build new grain hub on border https://www.world-grain.com/articles/…

Visual Capitalist, Visualizing the world’s largest consumer markets in 2030 https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-…

U.S. Dominance in Corn Exports on the Wane Due to Brazilian Competition https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/202…

The New Land Grain Corridor, website and infographics https://www.nlgc.ru/en/

Closing scene, Chinese rural area outside Guilin, Guangxi province

September 23, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

How US Deep State Co-Opted TikTok

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 21.09.2024

TikTok wiped Sputnik’s account on Saturday, days after Washington announced draconian new restrictions on Russian media. The company offered no explanation.

The newest round of censorship comes amid the US establishment’s long war against TikTok amid much-touted (but never substantiated) claims by authorities that China uses the app for espionage and influence operations against American users.

The crux of US government claims is that the app sends US customer data to the Asian nation, where it can be seen by Chinese authorities or intelligence services. TikTok says its US data is firewalled from leaving the country via an agreement with American tech giant Oracle.

Joe Biden signed a law in April threatening to completely ban TikTok within 270 days unless its Chinese parent company ByteDance divests from US operations, setting the stage for a legal battle. The measure, packaged in alongside fresh appropriations for US-funded hot spots in Ukraine, Gaza and Taiwan, was rejected by a handful of progressive Democrats and MAGA Republicans, who deemed it a blatant assault on constitutionally afforded free speech.

Senator Rand Paul warned that “once you start objecting to content, what you’re objecting to is speech… The bottom line is, the more information, the better. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. That’s what happens in a free country.”

Congressman Thomas Massie characterized the ban threat as a “trojan horse,” giving the president expansive powers to crack down speech. “Some of us just don’t want the president picking which apps we can put on our phones, or which websites we can visit… We also think it’s dangerous to give the president that kind of power,” Massie said.

TikTok is already banned from use from devices owned by the US federal government, and by numerous state and city governments and universities.

It’s also been banned or restricted in multiple US-allied countries, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, at least eight EU countries.

Former president Donald Trump kicked off the TikTok censorship saga in 2020 after deeming it a “national security threat,” prompting the company to file a preliminary injunction to prevent such an eventuality. Trump reversed course this past spring, saying banning TikTok would only make Mark Zuckerberg’s “enemy of the people” Facebook “bigger.”

September 21, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Australia’s Latest Censorship Bill Threatens Big Fines Over Online “Misinformation”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 12, 2024

Australia on Thursday introduced a new version of the upcoming legislation – slated to become law by the end of the year – targeting tech companies that are not tackling what the authorities decide to consider misinformation and disinformation.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

While the government explains the new bill as necessary to “crackdown on misinformation” – opponents see it as just the latest example of the government scheming to crack down on online speech.

The ruling Labor party is tabling this latest draft as a way to address previous criticism of the bill. It would give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) the right to monitor online platforms and enforce new codes or standards on the industry – in case their actions are seen as inadequate under the “self-regulating voluntary” rules.

So much for the “voluntary” component of the narrative (also to be found in various EU directives). Long story short, in Australia with the new proposal of the bill – if tech platforms are found to be in breach of it, they will be fined the equivalent of 5% of their global revenue.

Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland is behind this draft as well, and this time around she is sugarcoating it as featuring “a very high threshold” for serious harm and verifiably false content.

Sadly, the reports out of Australia do not dwell on what exactly passes off as “high threshold” in Australia these days.

Instead, there are a lot of quotes that all seem to come from one and the same global memo. And let nobody conflate this kind of legislative effort with, say, government-empowered censorship. Michelle Rowland said not to.

“This is not about individual pieces of content, it’s not about the regulator being able to act on those, it’s about the platforms doing what they said they’ll do,” the official is quoted as saying.

In other words, platforms better self-censor (the exact same sentiment behind all those “voluntary codes”) – to save the Australian government the grief of openly censoring them instead.

Meanwhile, Rowland made it clear that the platforms, at least in her country, are seen as curators, rather than “passive purveyors of content.” … When that suits the government, that is.

September 12, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

Most Variation in All-Cause Mortality Explained by Mass COVID-19 Vaccination

Australian Ecological Analysis Points to Vaccine Campaign Causing Rising Death Counts

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | September 1, 2024

After a pandemic, all cause mortality should go down due to a culling effect of the frail and vulnerable. We saw acute COVID-19 become the proximate cause of death in many seniors who were in the final year of natural life.

Now an analysis from Allen indicates that all-cause mortality is up in heavily vaccinated Australia and that at least two thirds in the variation per region is explained by mass COVID-19 vaccination. There are numerous well-documented fatal vaccine serious adverse events which are piling up months and years after the shots. Cumulative toxicity is another factor as a single person is not vaccinated just with the primary series (first two injections), but continued dosing every six months.

Allen, DE. 2024. The correlation between Australian Excess Deaths by State and Booster Vaccinations. Medical Research Archives, [online] 12(7).https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v1 2i7.5485

These data call for a direct data merge of the vaccine administration and death data in Australia to explore these very uncomfortable relationships. Because the Australian government pushed the vaccines so hard, officials have been stonewalling the public on this important next analysis.

September 1, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

No one saw this car crash coming?

Australia is running out of electricity to charge electric cars, and they’re only 0.9% of cars on the road

By Jo Nova | August 22, 2024

EV’s represent just 0.9% of all cars on the road in Australia but plans to install fast chargers are already grinding to a crawl. Last year, Ampol was planning to build 180 EV charging bays by the end of the year. Instead it’s proved difficult to even reach half that target. Eight months after they were supposed to have 180 in action they’ve reached 92.

Just throw money…

A mere 3 weeks ago Ampol announced that thanks to a $100 million dollar grant from the Australian government they would install more than 200 new fast chargers at Ampol’s national network of petrol stations this year. But presumably after making a few phone calls they’ve realized it’s not going to happen. (You’d think they might have made the calls before putting out the press release? Or the Minister might have phoned a friend before tossing $100 million to the wind?)

Power grid foils Ampol’s big EV charger plans

Ben Potter and Simon Evans, Australian Financial Review

Ampol, one of the country’s largest petrol retailers, has dialled back plans to triple the number of electric vehicle chargers because of power grid limitations in a blow to government hopes of pushing motorists towards cleaner cars in big numbers by 2030.

The company’s chief executive, Matt Halliday, said it would not be possible to expand the number of charging bays from 92 to 300 by the end of this year because of difficulties connecting chargers to the grid which is already struggling to cope with an influx of renewable energy generation.

In March, Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the government would spend $60 million helping car dealerships install chargers on sales lots.

[As] much as we spend a lot of time talking about generation, firming and transmission infrastructure, the last mile distribution grid is not really built for large-scale electrification, despite the best will that the players have to try and make it happen,” Mr Halliday added. “There are a lot of constraints that need to be worked through.”

These people are not good with numbers. A fast charger needs 300 kilowatts, and if there are three car charging spaces in a row, that’s a major load that our low voltage lines simply can’t bear. In order to get the local distribution networks upgraded the wait times to connect these fast chargers can be as long as two years.

Not to mention that we’re supposedly aiming to make all new cars electric in a mere five years or so, while we also try to shut down our largest coal plant.

At the moment most EVs charging overnight are probably burning more fossil fuels than petrol cars do. The EV revolution in Australia (should it happen) would rampantly increase our carbon dioxide emissions. But who cares, right? It was never about CO2.

It’s not like engineers haven’t been warning us this was going to happen for ten years.

August 25, 2024 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | 1 Comment

Australian Government blocks Covid inquiry ‘with teeth’

Once again, Labor characterised its foes as ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘cranks,’ ‘kooks’ and ‘far right extremists’ rather than engaging in rational debate

By Rebekah Barnett | Dystopian Down Under | August 22, 2024

The Australian Government has voted down a bill to establish a Covid Commission of Inquiry, which would have essentially the same powers and independence as a Royal Commission.

The bill was supported by a small coalition of senators from minor parties and the Opposition (conservative), but was rejected by the Labor Party(left-wing) in a vote today.

To date, Australia has had plenty of Covid inquiries, but none with teeth.

The siloing of inquiries to deal only with states and territory and federal governments on an individual basis has allowed for a lot of finger pointing with very limited accountability.

The scope of the federal Covid Inquiry excludes the policies of state and territory governments, which enacted vaccine mandates, lockdowns and inter-state border restrictions, leading politicians and media to call it “toothless.”

In turn, states and territories have focused on how well they implemented policies heavily influenced by the Federal Government and national advisory bodies without actually considering whether the policies were any good.

The patchwork nature of these inquiries allows the Federal Government to blame states and territories for implementing the harshest measures, and the states and territory governments pass the buck to the federal agencies and departments for influencing them to do so.

More holistic independent reviews like the Fault Lines report have resulted in talk of ‘lessons learned’ about “ill-conceived policies, politically driven health orders and excessive use of lockdowns,” but no meaningful attempts to hold anyone to account or guarantees that the lessons will inform future pandemic policy making.

Another problem with inquiries to date is that federal, state and territory governments have played hide the ball with important documentation and data required to properly assess their performance. As yet, no Australian government has released the health advice that draconian measures were based upon.

A Royal Commission or similar, taking the entire Covid response – at federal, state and territory levels – and with aggressive powers to command access to information that governments don’t want to release, would be required for real accountability.

The only ways to bring this about are for the executive to call a Royal Commission, or for the Senate to call a Commission of Inquiry.

However, despite the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 in 2022 that a Royal Commission into Australia’s Covid response be established, the Labor Government has resisted calls to do so.

The Committee, led by senior Labor Party member Katy Gallagher (now Minister for Finance, for Women and for the Public Service) criticised the then Liberal Government’s lack of transparency and accountability around pandemic decision making by the National Cabinet.

Emergency law making had “challenged the Australian Parliament’s capacity to provide meaningful scrutiny of proposed laws, particularly in identifying and addressing the impact of emergency powers on the rights of individuals,” the Committee stated in its recommendations.

Leader of the Opposition at the time, Anthony Albanese, sort of promised a Covid Royal Commission. But after being elected to government in May 2022, Prime Minister Albanese has resolutely dodged the issue, throwing his support behind the limited federal inquiry instead.

Hence, a group of concerned senators tabled the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024 in a bid to open up option B, an inquiry initiated by the Senate.

The bill, prepared by Senator Matt Canavan (Liberal), was co-sponsored by Senators Malcolm Roberts (One Nation), Alex Antic (Liberal), Gerard Rennick (Liberal), Ralph Babet (United Australia Party) and Matt O’Sullivan (Liberal), all of whom have been vocal critics of Australia’s pandemic response.

Source: Senator Alex Antic on X

During speaking time, senators who sponsored the bill argued that a Covid Commission of Inquiry is needed so that Australia can finally move on from Covid with a good plan in place for future pandemics. A proper inquiry would get to the bottom of what went wrong (and what went right) to restore trust in public health, they said.

Senator Roberts also said that in light of the fact that multiple U.S. states are now suing Pfizer for misleading about its Covid vaccine, if an inquiry found that Pfizer was indeed guilty of fraudulent behaviour, this could shift the financial burden of injuries and deaths associated with Pfizer’s product from Australian tax payers to the pharmaceutical giant.

Australian tax payers have coughed up more than $20 million on compensation for Covid vaccine injuries, but they will have to pay a lot more if a Covid vaccine injury class action is successful. The action, which was filed in the Federal Court last year, has enrolled over 1,500 injured Australians (or families of the deceased).

However, only ten senators supported the bill when it went to a vote in Parliament today. The bill was supported by the above mentioned senators (with the exception of Senator Antic, who is on leave), some members of the Coalition, One Nation, and independent Senator David Pocock.

Despite Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John stating that his party supports the establishment of a “frank” and “transparent” inquiry with the powers of a Royal Commission, the Greens abstained from the vote. Labor voted against the bill.

Source: Dynamic Red, 22 August 2024

I am told by the office of one of the senators who sponsored this bill that they have no intention of dropping the matter.

Previously, Senator Babet brought five separate motions to establish the world’s first government Excess Mortality Inquiry, which is now in progress thanks to Senator Babet’s persistence.

An inquiry into proposed terms of reference for a Covid Royal Commission has already been conducted, which will prove helpful in the event that either a Royal Commission or a Commission of Inquiry into Australia’s Covid response are eventually established.

Nonetheless, such efforts will face stiff opposition from the Albanese Government, if Labor Senator Tim Ayres’ speech in Parliament today is representative of his party’s position.

In speaking time before the vote, Senator Ayres said that the Government did not support the bill because “there’s already a public inquiry,” before launching into an astonishing diatribe of ad hominem attacks on the senators who proposed the bill.

Senator Ayres used the term ‘conspiracy theories’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’ more than twenty times, likened the efforts of senators to bring about a thorough Covid inquiry to movements motivated by “anti-semitism,” and called these same senators “cranks,” and the “nastiest, extreme, kooky elements of politics.”

Senator Ayres referred to ‘conspiracy theorists/theories’ more than 20 times in Parliament, 22 August 2024. Source: Australian Parliament House Streaming Portal, YouTube.

Senator Rennick called Senator Ayres’ speech “disgusting,” stating, “all we’re recommending today and supporting is that we have a thorough inquiry.”

In a statement after the vote, Senator Canavan said that more disheartening than Australia’s damaging pandemic response was “the response to the response.”

“Those Australians hurt during Covid deserve to have the accountability of proper public hearings, the publication of all the health advice and an open, transparent attempt to recognise mistakes as well as put in processes to prevent such things ever happening again.

“Why can’t the Government accept that if it is given immense power to lock people in their homes and force people out of work, that there should be an equal and corresponding obligation for them to be accountable to the people hurt by their decisions?”

Senator Babet took to X to express his dissatisfaction with the outcome, calling the decision of the Senate “weak.”

“Is it too much for Australians to ask for governments and the bureaucrats advising them to be held to account for the advice and actions they took during the pandemic?”

Apparently, yes.

August 24, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran dismisses ‘unreasonable’ joint statement by Australia, New Zealand

Press TV – August 21, 2024

Iran has dismissed a joint statement by Australia and New Zealand calling on the Islamic Republic not to retaliate the recent crimes of Israel.

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Nasser Kana’ani said on Wednesday that such a move once again demonstrates the double standards these countries employ when it comes to fundamental human rights, international law, and regional developments.

Kana’ani said the “unreasonable request” in the joint statement undermines Iran’s inherent right to punish the attacker and deter future attacks.

The Iranian official was referring to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the political bureau chief of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, in Tehran on July 31.

“In a situation where the United Nations Security Council, due to the unconditional support of the United States for the Zionist regime, could not even issue a statement condemning the terrorist act of the regime in assassinating Haniyeh … the unreasonable request of Australia and New Zealand means ignoring Iran’s inherent right to punish the aggressor and create deterrence against Israel’s adventures.”

In the joint statement, Australia and New Zealand expressed “grave concern about the prospect of further escalation across the region” and called on Iran to “refrain from further destabilizing actions in the Middle East, and cease its ongoing threats of a military attack against Israel.”

Kana’ani said the statement is a real example of turning a blind eye to the facts and misleading global public opinion. He said the main source of threat to regional and international peace and security is the “racist Zionist regime,” which enjoys broad Western support.

He said the crimes of the Israeli regime in Palestine and the region are taking on new dimensions every day, and now the regional stability is under grave threat due to the criminal behavior of the Zionist regime, which violates the United Nations Charter and international law.

“The approach of Australia and New Zealand in selectively choosing international norms not only does not help reduce tensions in the region but also encourages the rogue Israeli regime and its destabilizing actions in the region.”

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US Military Exports Skyrocketing as Washington Continues to Fuel Global Conflicts

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 09.08.2024

The US’ arms exports have risen dramatically since 2022 and may top $100 billion by the year’s end, according to the Pentagon.

In fiscal year (FY) 2022, sales through the US government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system jumped to $49.7 billion from $34.8 billion in FY2021; in FY2023, this number rose again to around $66.2 billion.

So far, FMS sales are already above $80 billion for FY2024, as per the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

Still, the total value of transferred weapons, services and security cooperation activities conducted under the Foreign Military Sales system in FY2023 was $80.9 billion, representing a 55.9% increase from a total of $51.9 billion in FY2022.

In 2024, the US State Department unveiled government-to-government FMS sales for FY2023, which required congressional notification:
Poland:

  • AH-64E Apache Helicopters – $12 billion;
  • High mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS) – $10 billion;
  • Integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) battle command systems (IBCS) – $4 billion;
  • M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks – $3.75 billion.

Germany:

  • CH-47F Chinook helicopters – $8.5 billion;
  • AIM-120C-8 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) – $2.9 billion.

Norway:

  • Defense articles and services related to the MH-60R multi-mission helicopters – $1 billion.

Czech Republic:

  • F-35 aircraft and munitions – $5.62 billion.

Bulgaria:

  • Stryker vehicles – $1.5 billion.

Australia:

  • C-130J-30 aircraft – $6.35 billion.

Canada:

  • P-8A aircraft – $5.9 billion.

South Korea:

  • F-35 aircraft – $5.06 billion;
  • CH-47F Chinook helicopters – $1.5 billion.

Japan:

  • E-2D advanced Hawkeye (AHE) airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft – $1.381 billion.

Kuwait:

  • National advanced surface-to-air missile system (NASAMS) medium range air defense systems (MRADS) – $3 billion;
  • Follow-up technical support – $1.8 billion.

Qatar:

  • Fixed site-low, slow, small unmanned aircraft system integrated defeat system (FS-LIDS) – $1 billion.

In addition to that, direct commercial sales (DCS) between foreign nations and US defense contractors jumped from $153.6 billion in FY2022 to $157.5 billion for FY2023. These sales included unspecified military hardware, services and technical data.

The US State Department provided a glimpse on what major DCS Congressional Notifications included in FY2023:

  • Italy – For the manufacturing of F-35 wing assemblies and sub-assemblies – $2.8 billion;
  • India – For the manufacturing of GE F414-INS6 engine hardware – $1.8 billion;
  • Singapore – F100 propulsion system and spare parts – $1.2 billion;
  • South Korea – F100 propulsion system and spare parts – $1.2 billion;
  • Norway, Ukraine – National advanced surface to air missile systems (NASAMS) – $1.2 billion;
  • Saudi Arabia – Patriot guided missile – $1 billion.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) highlights that arms exports by the US rose by 17% between 2014–18 and 2019–23. The US share of total global arms exports increased from 34% to 42%. Between 2019 and 2023, the US delivered major arms to 107 states, which was more than the next two biggest exporters combined, as per SIPRI.

The largest share of US arms went to the Middle East (38%), mostly to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Israel.

US arms exports to states in Asia and Oceania increased by 14% between 2014–18 and 2019–23; 31% of all US arms exports in 2019–23 went to the region with Japan, South Korea and Australia being the largest buyers.

Europe purchased a total of 28% of US arms exports in 2019–23. US arms exports to the region increased by over 200% between the 2014–18 and 2019–23 periods. Ukraine accounted for 4.7% of all US arms exports and 17% of those to Europe.

The institute projects that the US will continue to ramp up military sales in 2024 and beyond, with the focus on combat aircraft, tanks and other armored vehicles, artillery, SAM systems and warships.

August 9, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US weaponizing Australia for geopolitical interests requires Canberra’s vigilance

Global Times | August 7, 2024

In geopolitics, it appears that countries that frequently mention “coercion” are often the ones most skilled at using it. This has been proven again during the recent Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).

The US and Australia convened for AUSMIN on Tuesday. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin highlighted that the bilateral discussions covered several contentious topics, including China’s “coercive behavior.” Additionally, he announced the US’ plan to enhance “the presence of rotational US Forces in Australia” and increase “more frequent rotational bomber deployments” to the country.

These moves, under the banner of “security cooperation,” are aimed at positioning Canberra at the forefront of Washington’s geopolitical strategy and constitute a provocation in the Asia-Pacific region.

The term “concern” appeared approximately 14 times in the joint statement after the US-Australia meeting, intending to portray a tense and volatile atmosphere in the region. While the US blatantly alleged China’s “coercive behavior,” this narrative serves to advance its ultimate goal of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. By portraying China as a threat, the US aims to justify its provocative actions in the region. Such tactics, reminiscent of the crying wolf, are characteristic of hegemonic nation manipulating its allied states.

Using the label of China’s “coercive behavior” to prompt Australia into the forefront of the US overseas military deployments is a typical illustration of US Indo-Pacific strategy. In addition to the hype of the “China threat” during the AUSMIN, it was reported by Reuters that the Cocos Islands of Australia, a remote island close to an Indian Ocean chokepoint for Chinese oil shipments, is on a list of possible locations for US military construction aimed at deterring China.

“The US’ military deployment in the Cocos Islands serves two primary purposes,” Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Center at East China Normal University, told the Global Times. “It aims to monitor the Chinese navy, particularly submarines, and intends to present a deterrence against China,” the expert said. The role of these islands already illustrates the US’ hidden agenda in militarizing Australia, positioning it as a frontline against China, whether for surveillance or in preparation for potential conflicts.

The US military build-up in Australia is undeniable evidence of its use of the country as a geopolitical pawn. These deployments are not motivated by concern for Australia’s security needs but by US’ pursuit of global strategic interests. This approach places Canberra in a precarious position of competing blindly for Washington’s interests, potentially compromising its neutrality and independence in international affairs.

“Following increased US military deployment in Australia, its role has shifted from being a ‘southern anchor’ to a ‘southern spear,'” said Chen. The first pillar of AUKUS, the construction of nuclear-powered submarines for Australia, aims to enhance the country’s military capability for long-range strikes, which means US bases in Australia are no longer confined to defensive purposes.

The US harbors sinister intentions in militarizing Australia, luring allies like Australia to spearhead its hegemonic interests, which poses grave financial and security risks for the country, Chen added.

US instigation will only heighten Australia’s security risks, fostering excessive reliance on external military power. By leveraging supposed “regional threats” to coerce Australia into accepting military deployments, the US’ true objective is to manipulate Australia as a tool against China. This deserves Australia’s vigilance.

Australia’s natural geographic advantages could enable it to contribute constructively to regional peace and stability through an independent foreign policy. With significant geographical distance from China and no historical or territorial disputes, Australia faces no inherent threat from China.

Notably, Austin’s direct accusation of “Chinese coercion” did not feature prominently in the US-Australia joint statement. This suggests Australia acknowledges the importance of not fully aligning with US’ confrontational approach toward China at the expense of cooperation and friendship with China.

The recent thaw in China-Australia relations is a positive development. The Australian government should maintain rationality and composure, resisting the pressure to forsake its independent strategy and diplomacy.

Only by doing so can Australia effectively protect its national interests and sovereignty, preventing it from becoming a pawn in US geopolitical strategies and ensuring that its relationship with China is not sacrificed to US hegemonic ambitions.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »