Time to wake-up Australia

The military arm of Hamas has been listed on our books as a criminal organisation since 1995. Dr Mohamed's visit displays his arrogance and contempt for Australians. When will our leaders put end to this divisive attitude by Muslim leaders and "scholars" who then preach against us? GC.Ed. 

Australia's Grand Mufti meets Hamas

"I am pleased to stand on the land of jihad to learn from its sons and I have the honour to be among the people of Gaza where the weakness always becomes strength, the few becomes many and the humiliation turns into pride," he told local news agencies.

"We came here in order to learn from Gaza. As I said in my speech, we will make the stones, trees, and people of Gaza talk, in order to learn steadfastness, sacrifice, and the defence of one's rights from them.

Read more:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/australias-grand-mufti-meets-hamas/story-fndo28a5-1226545439343

Another perspective on guns

Crocker

Guns, Politics, Logic and Lies

Politics: The 1996 Port Arthur tragedy gave newly elected Prime Minister John Howard the opportunity to exchange a perception of waffling political mediocrity for one of leader with dogged might.

Massaging the wave of national grief, Mr. Howard vowed to make Australians safer with the introduction of new gun control laws. That the Australian Bureau of Statistics had just released a 16-year study on homicide by gun showed a steady decline was ignored—John Howard was an avowed gun hater. That existing laws were obviously sufficient was inconvenient, but one could turn a blind eye to that, and politically motivated, he did.

With his irrational move against all law abiding gun owners in Australia Mr. Howard followed advice from those who knew little of firearms, or, more likely, had personal agendas to remove all firearms.

Ignorance and emotive speech had led to a belief that the words ‘automatic’, ‘fully automatic’, ‘semi-automatic’ connoted evil. Joined with the words ‘weapon’ or ‘assault’ every firearm in Australia was demonised. Even the word ‘gun’ uttered in some circles caused hysteria.

The criminalizing of the largely harmless, for-rabbits-only, .22 calibre semi-automatic rifles—rifles of sentimental value handed down through families for generations was an example of knee-jerk politics.

Rarely, if ever, mentioned in mainstream media in the current debate is the failed firearms buy-back program where more than $500 million spent appears to have had little effect. Also included in the “rarely mentioned” matters is the systemic corruption known for years in the Australian Customs at airports, seaports, and post offices.

Current official statistics are extremely difficult to uncover, other than graphs and reports by anti-gun groups, and this finding by: Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi The Australian Firearms Buyback and its Effect on Gun Deaths is never mentioned. This is what the abstract notes:

The 1996-1997 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strictgun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in PortArthur, Tasmania, in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we reanalyse the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates. (JEL C22, K19)

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Australia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf  (Note: slow to load)

ABS: Firearm deaths, Australia, 1980 to 1995

Number of Deaths during the reference period of 15 years, 1980-95, a total of 10,150 deaths were registered as firearm-related. This accounted for half a percent of all deaths reported. However, in terms of premature mortality, firearm deaths are more significant, accounting for about 2.4% of total years of potential life lost before age 76 (see Technical Note). Of total deaths from external causes, which include accidents of all types, and all suicides and homicides, firearm deaths contributed 8.9%. Although the relative magnitude of deaths from the use of firearms as a cause of death is small, such deaths have social significance beyond the actual proportions and numbers. Analysis of ABS mortality data indicates that firearms are involved in approximately one-quarter of all suicides and one-fifth of all homicides.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytopic/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument

Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, November 2003.

An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers, with a fall in the number of suicides accounting for the largest part of that decrease. Nine out of 10 firearm related deaths involved males. Compared to firearm related suicides and accidents where less than 10 per cent involved the death of a female, a higher proportion of homicides involved a female victim (33%). Persons under the age of 15 years were least likely to die as a result of a firearm related injury. Males and females who suffered a fatal firearms injury tended to follow a similar age distribution, with persons aged between 24 and 34 years accounting for the largest number of firearm related deaths. There appears to be a shift in age related risk between 1991 and 2001. In 1991, males aged between 15 and 24 years had the highest risk of firearm related fatal injury (rate of 9.5 per 100 000), whereas in 2001 males aged 65 years and older had the highest risk (rate of 4.9 per 100 000). The majority of firearm related deaths were committed with a hunting rifle, although there has been an increase in the use of handguns.

Of the 128 544 deaths registered in Australia in 2001, 7876 deaths were caused by accidents, poisonings and violence (referred to as 'external causes'). The leading external cause of death in 2001 was accidents (transport, falls, and drowning/submersion) accounting for 61 per cent of all incidents. Firearms as a 'cause of death' only represent a small fraction of all external causes of death in Australia (4.2% or 333 deaths in 2001). While firearms account for a small proportion of externally caused deaths, there is much focus on controlling the use of firearms in criminal activities – particularly on whether or not their use has increased or decreased since the introduction of firearms controls in 1997. Briefly, these controls banned self loading rifles and both self loading and pump action shotguns; saw the establishment of nationwide firearms registration; and introduced stringent limitations to the ownership of firearms, primarily minimum age restrictions and satisfactory fitness and reason for ownership of firearms (Mouzos 1999). The main focus of this report is the identification of shifts in trends and patterns over the 11-year period between 1991 and 2001.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269.html

SMH, October 2006: The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur (showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no (difference in the rate of decline.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

However Posted on June 13, 2011 Gun Control Australia:

With thousands of lives saved by reduced rates of gun homicide and gun suicide, we know how wonderfully successful the gun laws introduced after the six, gun (massacres in 1987 and the two gun massacres of 1996 have been. We refer to the combination of these stricter gun laws as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA).

http://guncontrol.org.au/2011/06/australias-gun-laws-save-thousands-of-lives-shooter-groups-scared-to-tell-the-truth/

Guns: Lawful gun owners are generally a responsible group. However, fear of strict law, media fed propaganda from gun control groups and (do-gooder social engineers) demands a constant vigilance, if they are to continue their chosen sport.

Never cited by the shrill, anti-gun advocates is the British story where the government in 1997 removed all legitimately owned handguns from society—over 200,000 handguns at a cost of nearly $500 million. (Sound familiar?) Crime figures, from Britain now show dramatic increases in handgun crime. The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year—a rise of 89 per cent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

Logic and Lies: Anything to do with guns is emotive to all parties. With a cool head, however, we must ask, what are we trying to achieve? What is the ultimate goal of gun control? Is it to save lives and prevent untimely death? Is it to abolish firearms ownership? Or is it about the way in which you die? Few of us choose either method or time of our demise, but it usually comes with the comforting: “It was peaceful.” “It was quick.” “He wouldn’t have known what happened,” as in the case of a head-on collision.

Surely, gun control is about preventing death; in which case, is it not reasonable to ask what is the leading cause of “untimely” death? Should we not focus upon what kills us most, or does that remove polarising passion and biased agenda? What part does glorification of violence in movies play, for example?

Attorney General Nicola Roxon legislated a colour change on cigarette packages but more than 25,000 Australians will die this year from smoking. Last year 1,292 died on our roads. The incapacitated and injured are many thousands more. Accidents in the home, murders via knives, screwdrivers, hammers, and electrocution are only a few of non-firearms deaths. Dieting, sex and prescribed medications also cause “untimely” death.

The Australian Medical Association seeks to rid society of all firearms, but the AMA’s members allegedly cause more than 2,000 deaths per year through “Iatrogenic Injury,” and “co-morbidities.” All of the above kill more Australians than the 0.5% to 1% of the population who are killed by firearms. Consider also that police shootings causing death are included.

You can take any firearms statistics pro and con, add as much spin and lies to suit your agenda and guns are far from being a major factor in what kills us—and that’s a fact.

We can legislate against guns but we can’t legislate against insanity.

Guns vs people

Beware the watermelon

Piers Akerman is not fooled by the Green's Christine Milne and her silly waffle about changing the face of the Greens to become all things to all people. GC.Ed.

The delusional party is seeking to delude the electorate by reclassifying former core beliefs as "aims and principles", according to reports in the Fairfax press.

Read more:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/green-turning-red-in-watermelon-politics/story-e6frezz0-1226544226370

‘Articulate morons’ says Bob Katter

Who could argue with Katter's outspoken, as usual, assessment? GC. Ed.

BOB KATTER has clocked up nearly 40 years as a parliamentarian but he can't remember the standard of political debate being as low as it was in 2012.

Mr Katter, the Katter's Australian Party leader, said 2012 had been a year of unprecedented vitriol, the result of ''a complete lack of ideology and a complete lack of intellectual content''.

''I can't ever remember a year as bad as this,'' he said. ''You've got a bunch of people who quite frankly are very articulate, but very articulate morons. I couldn't have a lower opinion of both sides of the Parliament. There is not the slightest shred of thought process in there since Rudd was removed from the frontbench.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/articulate-morons-mps-call-for-better-public-debate-20121228-2bz9r.html#ixzz2GOKa24K8

Geoff Elliott “reports” on American gun control.

P Lillingston

Philip Lillingston suggests that the gun control debate sparked by the Newtown School shooting in the US might have been better placed on hold until after families had grieved. GC.Ed.

The current Washington correspondent for The Australian, Geoff Elliott, published a piece in the Weekend Australian for the 22-23 December, in which he gave us his report on the aftermath of the tragic Newtown school shooting. 

Newspapers generally make an effort to differentiate between a journalist’s or correspondent’s report and a columnist’s opinion piece. As he is not listed as any of the twenty-nine identified columnists on the website of The Australian, and as he has specifically been placed in one area of the world where news frequently happens, it might be reasonable to say that the role of Mr Elliott is to report the facts happening there rather than to compose what used to be called “think pieces” pontificating on current trends.

Bearing that in mind his article “Defending the right to bear arms” made for interesting reading. To begin with the heading came with a sub heading stating “The gun lobby will fight attacks on the second amendment.” Fair enough. No problem there: he is giving us an introduction as to an unchallengeable truism which will be some aspect of his article. However, together with that it also carried a super-heading declaring “How many innocent victims have to die?” From that we are apparently to take as a given that the right to bear arms goes hand in hand with innocent people dying. If Philip Adams had written that in one of his columns it would have hardly raised an eyebrow because, well, it was Philip Adams. But for a correspondent to imply as truth a highly topical assertion,  and right at the beginning of his report, does make one wonder if he ever gave thought to that Fox News adage “We report, you decide” repeated so often on a news service that he surely must watch in keeping abreast of local events.

In his article he allocates space for a rather spurious argument that because gun control advocates get threatening hate mail (by some so disconnected from reality they equate gun control with pro Islamic and pro minority sentiments) then in America the Second Amendment triumphs over the First Amendment. However his main subject of reporting is how America’s immediate reaction to such tragedies is to give comfort to the victims, rather than to immediately politicise it. 

Mr Elliott hears something “so incomprehensible to an Australian ear” when the governor of a state who had just suffered a mass shooting tragedy criticised a reporter for so soon bringing up gun control, stating, 

“At this point, what it's about is comforting family members … and helping this community heal. And so to those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say take that elsewhere”

Our correspondent doesn’t wish to claim sole ownership for this lack of comprehension and attempts to spread it amongst all Australians. But just why would most Australians find temporarily holding back on the political aspects of a tragedy so hard to understand? 

If the young Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik should serve his 21 years in prison and then, upon release, proceed to slaughter another 50 adults and children, do we immediately hector the Norwegians as to why they have such an incredibly dumb sentencing system, or do we send sympathies and allow them, at their own pace, to grieve and bury their dead, before eventually getting around to broaching the issue of possibly reviewing their (inane) sentencing practices. 

 Whenever some callous and despicable murder happens in Australia one can be sure there are always calls for the re-introduction of capital punishment. It has even happened recently with the spate of single women being murdered on Melbourne streets. In such cases the (correct) response from people in authority is that one should not make permanent laws in the heat of the moment. Those that would vote for the death penalty in the same week as news of some new horror, might not necessarily feel that way after time has allowed one to cool off. That Virginia governor, who was not even a right wing Republican, but a Democrat, was not permanently forbidding a gun rights debate, he was simply saying “not at this point”. It was the same tack even the President followed. At Barak Obama’s first news conference after the current tragedy, he spoke of how something had to be done with regards to these school shootings but he specifically did not get political by mentioning who or what might be at fault. That came later. 

When it did come it came with a vengeance for one certain cable news host. Prominent British ex-newspaper editor and now host for a CNN news show, Piers Morgan made international news when interviewing Gun Owners of America Executive Director, Larry Pratt on the Newtown tragedy. Not for some insightful and acute questions which might have left his guest without an answer, but because of his seemingly uncontrolled reaction when given answers by his guest he apparently did not wish to comprehend or otherwise found unsatisfactory. 

Mr Morgan did not enhance his professional journalistic prestige by responding on air to his guest with statements such as “What a ridiculous argument. You have absolutely no coherent argument whatsoever. [You are]… an unbelievably stupid man”.

The theme of Mr Elliott’s whole piece is that the right to bear arms is so ingrained into the American psyche that rational argument to abolish its constitutional support, the second amendment, is impossible.  His attitude to guns is such that it is “So utterly foreign it is stuck in the memory, forever so” that someone is not allowed to discuss the politics of gun control within days of the news of a shooting horror.

Irrespective of the actual virtues or vices of gun control, the irony is that, in the public forum, it currently seems to be the prohibitionist side losing reason to emotion when it comes to discussing bearing arms.

Philip Lillingston is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party

 

 

 

 

The Goebellesque/McTernan trick for 2013

Considering modern technology, McTernan seeks to control ALP propaganda via Google and Wikipedia. When the ordinary person does a web search for "facts" about Australian political affairs, page after page will be propaganda from the Goebellesque McTernan. Step 6 of the 10 steps decreed in the Communist Manifesto as carried out in the US. GC. Ed.

6.                  Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands on the State. Part of the [New Deal] by Franklin Delano Roosevelt theCommunications Act of 1934 established the [Federal Communications Commission (FCC)], it is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite, and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States.

McTernan says:

''Adopting an open-data framework to increase transparency, accountability and collaboration would allow the digitally literate public to design innovative ways to use government data,'' he said in his thinker's report, which has been made public.

''Everybody in Australia has got two personal researchers – Google and Wikipedia,'' he said. ''So, in the end you need to be clear: this is the problem, these are the facts, this is the way we're going to analyse it, and this is what we're going to do.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pms-adviser-encourages-a-more-cooperative-approach-20121227-2bxut.html#ixzz2GHlDMdMq

Sporting shooters to hunt in National Parks


P WhelanIf and when all the knee-jerk reactions and theatrical hysteria promulgated by the hankie-wringers becomes less shrill, this article by Peter Whelan will make sense to an increasing number who believe government has become far too intrusive in the lives of Australians.
GC. Ed.

Why are The Greens and Labor in NSW Parliament so afraid of licenced conservation hunters in national parks?

As a long-time sporting shooter and hunter I am looking forward to getting into the vast areas of National Parks in New South Wales, to help reduce the numbers of vermin. It has been a well known fact that those national parks, along with NSW State Forests, have been a breeding ground and sanctuary for feral animals such as wild goats, pigs, foxes, feral cats and dogs. As relayed to me anecdotally and from personal experience, the best properties to hunt such vermin are adjoining those neglected forests.

However, a draft risk assessment into allowing licenced shooters into national parks, prepared by the Premiers Department, has been seized upon by Labor and The Greens to once again scare people into thinking that shooting pest animals is somehow dangerous to other park users.

I would like to provide a logical and reasoned approach to counter their wildly emotional bleating. Rather than being at risk from licenced shooters in National Parks, other users of those parks are likely to benefit, for a multitude of reasons.

Licenced sporting shooters and hunters are very conscious of the safety of others. It is part of their training. The experience in other Australian States, where hunting in National and State Parks has been allowed for many years, has found there are minimum risks.

If more shooters were to hunt in National Parks the better it would be in helping reduce those feral animals, such as goats, pigs, foxes, wild dogs and feral cats, which cause so much damage. Soil erosion is caused by goats and pigs; small birds are killed by cats, while foxes are responsible for wiping out small native mammals in some areas. Conservation hunting will lead to improvement in survival of native wild life, so will benefit all users. Government and community groups should be getting behind the Feral Animal Control Act.

As NSW President of the Outdoor Recreation Party, we have members and supporters involved in many different outdoor activities such as mountain biking, fishing, 4-Wheel-Driving and horse riding. They believe that the vast areas of National Parks should be open to as many healthy outdoor pursuits as possible, as they are in other States and in many other Countries, and not locked away, or accessible only by an exclusive few.

Every year we hear examples of mountain bikers being injured,  people being stranded (or drowning) after fishing expeditions went wrong, bushwalkers becoming lost and suffering from hyperthermia when weather conditions change and skiers being killed. Most outdoor activities involve a certain level of risk. That’s what heightens their sense of adventure!

 Hunters who are familiar with bushcraft, geography, weather conditions and navigation will be available to assist other users of the bush, who might become lost or injured through their particular activity. 

Perhaps the opposition coming from The Greens and Labor is more about stopping people going out enjoying themselves with their mates and being responsible for their own actions.

Their opposition seems to be centred on the remote possibility of a licenced and qualified hunter accidently shooting someone, when the reality is that the areas of bushland where hunters will be active will be in more remote regions, where access by other users is unlikely.

From our evaluation and experience, the benefits of having a free and highly skilled resource, like licenced hunters reducing the damage done by vermin and feral animals, far outweigh the slight probability of risk to other park users.

Peter Whelan is National President of the Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters (CLASS) as well as being NSW President of the Outdoor Recreation Party.

 

A belated Christmas poem

Twas the night before Christmas and Santa's a wreck…

How to live in a world that's politically correct?

His workers no longer would answer to "Elves",

"Vertically Challenged" they were calling themselves.

 

The labor conditions at the North Pole,

Were alleged by the union to stifle the soul.

Four reindeer had vanished, with nary a clue,

Except the graffiti from "Wildlife Rescue".

 

And Equal Employment had made it quite clear,

That Santa had better use more than reindeer.

So Dancer and Donner, Comet and Cupid,

Were replaced with four pigs — and you know that looked stupid!

He went on TV, in front of them all.

And said to forget about decking the hall, 

And as for the gifts, why, he'd ne'er had a notion

That making a choice could cause so much commotion.

 

Nothing of leather, nothing of fur,

Which meant nothing for him. And nothing for her.

Nothing that might be construed to pollute.

Nothing to aim. Nothing to shoot.

 

Nothing that clamored or made lots of noise.

Nothing for just girls, or just for the boys.

Nothing that claimed to be gender-specific.

Nothing that's warlike or non-pacifistic.

 

No candy or sweets — they were bad for the tooth.

Nothing that seemed to embellish a truth.

And fairy tales, while not yet forbidden,

Were like Ken and his boyfriend (better off hidden).

 

For they raised the hackles of those psychological,

Who claimed the only good gift was one ecological.

No cricket, no football — someone could get hurt!

Besides, playing sports exposed kids to dirt.

 

Dolls were said to be sexist, and should be passé;

And Nintendo would rot your entire brain away.

So Santa just stood there, disheveled, perplexed;

He just could not figure out what to do next.

 

He tried to be merry, he tried to be gay,

(But you've got to be careful with that word these days.)

His sack was quite empty, limp to the ground;

Nothing fully acceptable was to be found.

 

Something special was needed, a gift that he might,

Give to all without angering the left or the right.

A gift that would satisfy, with no indecision,

Each group of people, every religion;

 

Every ethnicity, and every hue,

Everyone, everywhere, perhaps even you.

So here is that gift, it's price beyond worth:

"May you and your loved ones enjoy peace on this Earth."

Author unknown to me. GC. Ed.

 

Christmas “spins” fit for the garbage

The amazing Swanzoni crows about unemployment at 5%.

Just as troubling is the rise in youth unemployment. As The Daily Telegraph now reveals, the unemployment rate for teenage males has increased from 18 per cent in 2011 to 20 per cent in 2012. A number of factors are involved, but all seem to stem from the global economic crisis.

Read more:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/jobless-figures-dont-tell-it-all/story-e6frezz0-1226543757084

***********************************************************************************************

The Greens say they will revamp policies to appear mainstream but will not move from their core beliefs. We know that 2013 will be a year of unprecedented political spin. This one from Christine Milne is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

After a year in which Labor figures have attacked the Greens as
''loopy'' and ''extremists'' who ''threaten democracy'', the new
platform gives the federal elected MPs – nine senators and one lower
house MP – more flexibility in negotiating legislation when holding the
balance of power.

 

 

***********************************************************************************************

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth:

A vicious cold snap has claimed nearly 200 lives across Russia and eastern Europe, and forecasters say the freeze could last until Christmas Eve. Thermometers have been stuck below minus 20 degrees Celsius in Moscow and below minus 50 degrees in some parts of Siberia for a week.