(Screenshot of theaustralian.com.au) Who turns up for lunch at the Lawler household when they are entertaining David Rofe QC provides food for thought, says Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks.
THIS WEEK, once again, Brad Norington of The Australian has revived my faith in investigative journalism in this country.
Norington, on February 28 exposed
us to the murky world of Tony Abbott's heroes Kathy Jackson and Michael
Lawler and their recent relationship with 83-year-old dementia sufferer
David Rofe QC, and in particular their involvement with his estimated
$30 million estate. Many have described their behaviour as “ambulance
chasing”, and there are other words I could use to describe their
behaviour and ethics that are not fit to print.
Tony Abbott has in the past described Jackson as “brave and decent”; he may have a different definition of these words than me.
I looked up “brave” in the dictionary. I found no mention of using what in my opinion are excuses to delay Federal Court proceedings
for around two years. It also failed to mention refusing to answer
questions on the stand at a Royal Commission and claiming to be
ambushed.
While I was at it, I also looked up “decent” and can’t say I was surprised to find that taking around $250,000 of cancer research money and depositing it into your personal bank account wasn’t there.
Nor was teaming up with your partner to reportedly try to control the estate of an old man with dementia.
However, just when you think that things could not become any murkier, they do.
Norington’s article published yesterday gives
an eyewitness account of the pressure exerted on the 83-year-old
dementia sufferer David Rofe by this Coalition pin-up girl Kathy
Jackson and her Tony Abbott appointed Fair
Work Commission vice president partner Michael Lawler. If the
allegations, which have come via a signed affidavit that was given to
NSW Police, are true then it really does paint this pair in an extremely
poor light.
The $1.35 million dollar property that Lawler purchased with Rofe’s money allegedly against Rofe’s wishes can be viewed via this link and,
as you can see by the pool with no safety fence, high balconies and
steep sloping yard — they are not what I would have envisioned as being
ideal for an 83-year-old dementia sufferer.
Demential sufferer death trap?
However what is interesting about this turn of events is not only what happened but who was involved.
The events described in detail in Norington’s article took place at a
lunch at the residence of Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler. The witness
who has signed an affidavit with an account of what occurred over lunch
was none other than former AWU official Bob Kernohan. Also at the lunch were Kathy Jackson, Michael Lawler, Davis Rofe QC and also blogger Michael Smith, who at the time was living with Jackson and Lawler.
If we cast our minds back a little to the Trade Union Royal Commission, it sheds an interesting light on the entire procedure.
The Royal Commission was set up by Tony Abbott and George Brandis and
it was clear from the outset that it was designed and set up to achieve
two primary goals — the crucifixion of Julia Gillard and the vindication of Kathy Jackson.
What I find alarming is that all living under one roof during the Royal Commission we have:
Kathy Jackson: the union turncoat facing allegations of $1.4 million in fraud who has been praised by Coalition MPs, including Tony Abbott;
Michael Lawler: the vice president of Fair Work Commission,
the government body where workplace issues and union matters are
resolved and who’s investigation into the HSU skipped over his partner
Jackson's time and was the basis for the HSU hearings at the Commission,
was an appointee of the man who set up the Royal Commission Tony
Abbott, and someone who has acted as a lawyer for Kathy Jackson;
Michael Smith: The blogger and former shock-jock who led the charge
against Julia Gillard and who has been a cheerleader for Kathy Jackson
despite evidence against her, is also a friend of the Royal Commission’s
creator George Brandis, who even gave a speech at Smith’s wedding after
travelling there at the taxpayers' expense, only paying it back reluctantly after the media highlighted it.
It would seem the only people missing from this cosy affair were Brandis and Abbott himself.
The Royal Commission was set up to destroy reputations and,
ironically, it may just succeed in doing that. However, it is the
reputations of Abbott and Brandis that are most at risk and, given
Abbott’s standing within his own party, not to mention the polls, and
given also Brandis’ recent censure over the hugely embarrassing Triggs debacle, I’m not sure either has much credibility left for their reputations to cling too.
One thing is for sure: these matters involving Jackson and Lawler are
going to continue on for a long time yet and every time their names
come up in the civil and likely criminal cases it is Abbott’s and Brandis’s names that will be associated with them, along with other Coalition members.
Meanwhile the taxpayer continues to pay Lawler’s $435,000 salary that
Abbott gifted him and, until that issue is resolved, Abbott will always
be linked with the pair.
Abbott’s ignorance of this matter is neither “brave nor decent”.
Ipsos Public Affairs teams around the world conduct research on
public policy issues and on the attitudes and behaviours of citizens and
consumers. We also conduct public opinion research and elite
stakeholder, corporate, and media opinion research. Our goal is to help
our clients manage issues, advance reputations, determine and pinpoint
shifts in attitude and opinion, and enhance communications. We provide clients with information that helps them understand how
they can build efficient and effective policies, programs,
communications strategies, and marketing initiatives.
Muslim leaders outraged by Tony Abbott's chiding over extremism
Islamic leaders are furious at the prime minister’s suggestion that the community does not do enough to stamp out extremism
The head of the Arab Council of Australia, Randa Kattan, has said the
comments were “promoting hatred and inflaming racism”. Photograph: Nikki
Short/AAP
Muslim leaders are furious at Tony Abbott’s suggestion that the
community does not do enough to stamp out extremism, saying the
statement is the “last card” of an embattled leader who is using
dog-whistle politics to “inflame racism”.
On Monday Abbott delivered a speech on national security,
in which he said: “I’ve often heard western leaders describe Islam as a
‘religion of peace’. I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more
often, and mean it.”
The head of the Arab Council of Australia, Randa Kattan, said the comments were “promoting hatred and inflaming racism”.
Kattan said she had seen a sharp increase in racism levelled at Muslim Australians since the Martin Place siege in Sydney last year, and that the comments by the prime minister are “dog-whistling to the racists out there”.
“It’s not helpful, it’s divisive. It labels our community as being
responsible for the actions of a few,” Kattan said. “It’s not helpful
for anyone to make these statements … How much more can we condemn?”
At least one organisation has announced it will boycott a government
consultation session on deradicalisation programs scheduled for Monday
evening over Abbott’s remarks.
Zaahir Edries, the president of the Muslim Legal Network, said the
group particularly objected to the prime minister’s comment that Muslim
leaders should promote Islam as a religion of peace more often.
Advertisement
“This
clearly shows that the government has not engaged in sincere and
genuine communication with the Muslim community. We have incessantly
denounced violence and encouraged peace, not simply as a responsive
measure but because those are our core religious beliefs,” he said.
“Consequently, we are of the view that tonight will not be genuine
consultation with our community and we will advise our community of our
reasons for non-attendance.”
The head of the Lebanese Muslim association, Samier Dandan, said the
community “has had enough” of the prime minister using national security
as a way of “scapegoating” Muslims.
“This is your last card, prime minister, your last card to save your career.”
He told Guardian Australia that Abbott is blaming other leaders for his electoral unpopularity.
“Stop asking us what we’ve done [to stamp out extremism],” Dandan
said. “Mr Prime Minister, what have you and your government done?”
He said the community had done everything it could, other than
getting “a tattoo imprinted on our forehead” to condemn violent
extremism.
“He’s living in his own cocoon where he wants to look for scapegoats,” Dandan said.
The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, stepped back from Abbott’s statements in question time on Monday.
“I want to applaud members of our Muslim community here in Australia
who are taking a stand against extremism and working with the
government, with mosques and community groups to keep our people safe,”
Bishop said.
Sheikh Mohamadu Nawas Saleem, spokesman for the Australian national
imams council, said the prime minister’s statements failed to take into
account the “silent, behind the curtains” efforts of Muslim leaders to
eradicate terrorism.
“I’m sure imams around Australia collectively already speak out
against Daesh,” Saleem told Guardian Australia. “What we said against
violent extremism, we meant.” Daesh is another term used to refer to
Islamic State.
The sheikh said that community intervention had worked better than the security agencies in identifying radicals.
“It is because of the efforts of imams that Australia is safe,”
Saleem said, adding that Abbott’s comments “demonise Muslims at large”.
The imams’ council has regular meetings with the attorney general’s
department, police and security agencies on how to identify people who
could fall into the clutches of terrorism and work against it.
Saleem said this collaboration has been working well, but there is always more that could be done.
The government initially set aside $13.4m over four years to fund
community engagement programs as part of its counter-terrorism strategy,
but only $1m was set aside in 2014-15 for the program.
Individual groups can receive grants of up to $50,000 each, which some groups say is not enough.
“Is the government serious about solving this problem, or is this just to inflame racism?” Kattansaid.
On Q&A last Monday, RBA board member Heather Ridout expressed her disappointment at the decision by the voters of Queensland to reject the Newman government’s privatisation plans.
Whether it has been noticed or not, that election result coupled with
the recent elections in Victoria and Greece share a common denominator
that may have far reaching ramifications for future governments all over
the OECD world.
The Victorian and Queensland elections were fought primarily on the
issues of infrastructure and privatisation. There were other issues in
the background but these two took centre stage for most of their
respective campaigns.
If you were to combine these two issues and express them as one
broader concern for voters, it is likely that concern would be
identified as sentiment; a feeling that selling off assets and allowing
private companies to buy public utilities that result in costing users
more, wasn’t right.
Austerity has been the catch cry in recent times with governments
telling us that our present lifestyle is no longer sustainable. They
then encourage the privatisation of public assets as if this somehow
benefits us.
When
politicians look at publicly owned assets, all they see is a pile of
money sitting there waiting to be collected. They think if that pile of
money can be realised without effecting the service it performs, then
why not sell it and spend the money on something that will make them
look good.
They then try to sell the idea to the public who are led to believe
that this will improve their lives and those of future generations.
But it never seems to work out this way. We have seen public assets pass
from our hands into the hands of the already wealthy time and time
again, without ever seeing any tangible reward.
Has the sale of Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank and the State
Electricity Commission of Victoria, just to name a few improved our
quality of life?
Looking at the result of these three elections it is worthwhile
asking: Are we seeing a wiser electorate waking up to the hypocrisy
peddled about privatisation?
In Greece, a country that has been cheated, lied to and then forced
to pay the price of neo-liberal excesses by both their own government
and the EU Parliament, the people decided enough was enough.
Again, it was sentiment, a feeling they had been punished enough, if
indeed, they should have been punished at all. In all three locations
the people judged privatisation, austerity and structural reform to be a
smoke screen hiding the real agenda behind these moves.
That is not to say the people’s understanding of the real agenda is
crystal clear either. But they do understand that the flow of wealth to
the top end of town, at their expense, is real. Public assets are
generally always undervalued.
They
could clearly see that their living standards were in decline while
politicians, developers and corporate giants effused a smug arrogance
reminiscent of the Frank Underwood character in “House of Cards”.
They decided in all three cases they weren’t going to take it
anymore. It begs the question therefore: Is the public perception of
neo-liberal philosophy now clearer and are the people finally beginning
to reject it?
Unregulated capitalism has always been at odds with those basic human
values that we hold in common; fairness, honesty, sympathy, charity,
empathy. The notion that people come before profit, was somehow cast
aside when the money train left the station and big capital promised big
rewards for all; rewards they never intended to share.
If we can take a lesson from Victoria, Greece and Queensland, it is
that big capital will have to re-assess the way it treats its most
valuable resource: the people who make it work for them.
The challenge for the new governments in Australia now, is to explain this to big capital.
But if our local business writers continue to suggest as Adele Ferguson of The Age does that, “With
an infrastructure backlog and big budget deficits, we can build the
infrastructure we need only by selling assets and attracting private
capital”, then there is still a long way to go.
Meanwhile, more governments will fall unexpectedly because they ignored public sentiment in favour of private gain.
The Abbott Government's changes to Medicare are poised to make life even tougher for struggling Australians, writes Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks.
THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT that life is becoming tougher under the Abbott Government — and it seems poised to become even tougher.
With the unemployment level reaching
dizzy heights it hasn’t reached since John Howard was in The Lodge and
the cost of living heading in a Northerly direction, I thought I’d offer
some words of comfort my mum used to say for those struggling to make
ends meet:
“At least you have your health, and that’s the most important thing.”
I’m sure many mothers used to say the same thing, however I wonder if
Tony Abbott’s mother ever did. If she did, it doesn’t seem to have sunk
in; or perhaps he just doesn’t care, thinking poor health is other
people’s problems.
In continuing with the Liberal Party ideology that says certain
things should only be for the rich – you know, little things like a fair
trial or high quality education – Tony Abbott seems determined to add
good healthcare to the list of things only the rich should enjoy.
It was something that actually made us glad to have Jacqui Lambie in the Senate — after all, the Coalition's plans for a $7 charge to see a doctor was
only abandoned once it became apparent the plan would not pass through
the Upper House. The Coalition referred to it as a GP co-payment at the
time, the country however thought of it as a kick in the guts.
Not only that, there was some creative accounting being done behind
the scenes with Joe Hockey’s calculator — the one that seemingly goes to
11. The money raised by the tax was supposed to make the Medicare
system more sustainable, despite all of it going into a Medical Research Fund.
The savings to the Government were based on the notion that the GP
co-payment would make Australians go to the doctor less and hence save
the Government money. A forward thinking person may think that a lower
standard of health through less doctor visits may have an impact later
on hospital admissions but, alas, there was not a forward thinker to be
found in the Coalition caucus.
Luckily, the Senate did.
However, we were not saved for long.
Tony Abbott has claimed to have heard Australians voices on a number
of the unfair elements of his Budget and wants us to think he is making
changes accordingly.
If health is supposed to be one of the things Abbott is sending a new
message to the nation on, then that message translated would appear to
be: “Screw You”.
As a means of going around the Senate to have his great big new Sick
Tax implemented, Abbott and his former henchman come Health Minister Peter Dutton
concocted a scheme to cut the rebate paid to doctors, thus forcing
doctors to have two options — charge patients or effectively halve their
income.
However, given it is a Coalition Government we are talking about, even something this simple could not be done without a major screw up.
The changes were announced by Dumb and Dumber, Dutton and Abbott, on
December 9 came with a “fact-sheet” to the industry that was anything
but. According to the fact sheet, doctors that have not completed GP specialisation would receive a higher rebate than those that have.
Excerpt from the Medicare changes fact-sheet (Image pm.gov.au)
You could be forgiven for thinking that Abbott and co were preferring
us to see witch doctors, medicine men, or gypsies with crystals rather
than specialist GPs.
Twelve days later, crisis was averted when changes were made to the definitions of Medicare items for non-specialised GP’s.
So what are the changes and how will they affect us?
The changes to the rebate for doctors cut the rebate for a visit by a
non-concessional patient of between five and 10 minutes from $37.05 to
$16.95 for a specialist GP, and from $21 to $11 for a non-specialist GP.
That’s around a 50% cut, more for a specialist.
For most, that will mean that the sick tax has gone from $7 to $20. What it also means is that if you go to a GP that bulk bills, after the 19th January when the sick tax kicks in there is a very good chance they won’t be bulk billing anymore.
Another issue will be that the doctors’ visits will be longer, as the
rebate is less affected by longer visits, thus drastically increasing
waiting times for patients.
Don’t be surprised if some members of the Coalition try to blame this
on the Senate for refusing to allow the original $7 sick tax pass
Senate. We can expect the Coalition spin doctors and MPs to tell us all
how the Medicare system must be sustainable and how the Government had
to stem the bleeding of funds from the budget due to those who rort the
system by seeing a doctor too often.
However, there are other ways to make Medicare more sustainable than
by implementing a sick tax. Not wanting to be one of those who
criticises without offering a solution, here’s one from me.
We should look at scrapping the discount on the Medicare Levy for
those with private health insurance. After all, tthose with private
health insurance very often still end up in a public hospital using a
public hospital bed and the same staff as the rest of us.
People don’t choose where they have a heart attack, or plan where
they are involved in a car accident, so in emergency situations many of
the benefits private health insurance cover are about as useful as a
unicycle to your pet goldfish.
Nevertheless, despite using the public health system, the government
still offers them a discount for having insurance while those that don’t
have insurance subsidise their stay in hospital.
The rich are being subsidised by the poor. For those of you thinking
this must have been a John Howard initiative, you would be right. And
let’s not forget Tony Abbott was health minister under Howard.
While the Coalition's insurance company lobbyist mates rub their
hands together, the middle class welfare continues as we all are forced
to pay a sick tax.
Welfare is designed to help those that need it most, however we currently have a government that seems to think differently.
As we have already seen, the Abbott Government's sights are firmly
set on the unemployed, the pensioners and the disabled — or "the
leaners", as they are often referred to. That trend seems set to
continue, as the Coalition's middle-class welfare gravy train continues
rumbling on.
In another twist to this debate, the sick tax coming into force on 19 January will push a hospital system already struggling under
Coalition state and Federal cuts even closer towards breaking point.
This, in turn, will add to the pressure on the state governments to call
for changes to the GST.
How convenient.
Peter Wicks is a Labor Party member and a former NSW ALP state candidate. You can follow Peter Wicks on Twitter @madwixxy.
The killing of 12 journalists and cartoonists is an
atrocity, however marching in solidarity with tyrants who oppress human
rights and free speech in their own countries sends an appalling message
to the world, writes Dr Martin Hirst.
THE KILLING OF 12 JOURNALISTS from French magazine Charlie Hebdo was a horrible murder carried out by crazed ideologues, which I condemn unconditionally — however expressing solidarity with mass murderers and the enemies of freedom of speech is undoubtedly a backward step.
This letter from another French leftist
also sets out some very cogent and nuanced arguments that non-French
people should probably read. It outlines the difficulties of fighting
fundamentalism and fascism at the same time. But it is the necessary
form that solidarity must take — not the perverted version of marching
with ghouls.
This is the difficult argument I am having with my French
friends: we are all aware of the fact that the attack on Charlie Hebdo
will be exploited by the Far right, and that our government will use it
as an opportunity to create a false unanimity within a deeply divided
society. We have already heard the prime minister Manuel Valls announce
that France was “at war with Terror” – and it horrifies me to recognize
the words used by George W. Bush. We are all trying to find the narrow
path – defending the Republic against the twin threats of fundamentalism
and fascism (and fundamentalism is a form of fascism). But I still
believe that the best way to do this is to fight for our Republican
ideals. Equality is meaningless in times of austerity. Liberty is but
hypocrisy when elements of the French population are being routinely
discriminated. But fraternity is lost when religion trumps politics as
the structuring principle of a society. Charlie Hebdo promoted equality,
liberty and fraternity – they were part of the solution, not the
problem.
Solidarity is a fine and welcome human emotion. It shows that we are not all Ayn Randian sociopaths who will always place our individual comfort and wealth above the problems of others.
Solidarity is an expression of hope that the world can be a better
place and it is a recognition that by coming together in collective
action we can and we will change the world.
While the murder of journalists in cold blood by crazed Islamic
terrorists can never be condoned and is rightly condemned by anyone of
conscience; we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into displays of
solidarity unthinkingly and based only on a gut reaction to horror.
Think before you walk, zombie-like in the footsteps of the damned.
Remember too, that the so-called “War on Terror”
has killed tens of thousands of Muslims (and others) right across the
Middle East and now extending – via drone strikes – into Pakistan. It is
not pens and pencils killing civilians it is bullets, bombs, missiles
and chemical weapons fired and launched by Western armies instructed and
financed by their governments.
Why is the presence of the Saudi ambasador such a disgusting slap in
the face for the memory of the Charlie Hebdo journalists? Well, apart
from being the largest state sponsor of Sunni terrorism and banning
women from driving, there’s the slight problem of the Saudi state
sentencing a young blogger to 10 years in jail and 1,000 lashes from a
cane. The first 50 lashes was administered on Friday last week when all
the Charlies had their backs turned.
Even the loyal New York Times couldn’t ignore this story:
The floggings are to be administered with a cane over a period of months.
The blogger, Raif Badawi,
was arrested after starting a website called “Free Saudi Liberals,” and
he was later convicted of charges that included cybercrime and parental
disobedience.
The case has drawn attention to the strict limits on freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia, a close Arab ally of the United States, and prompted unusually direct criticism from the American government.
Oh yeah, did you notice, Saudi
Arabia is a “close ally” of the USA and what is “direct criticism”? Does
it hurt as much as, let’s say, 1,000 whacks with a cane?
Jen
Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, told reporters on Thursday that
the United States was concerned that Mr. Badawi would face “the inhumane
punishment of a thousand lashes in addition to serving a 10-year
sentence in prison for exercising his rights to freedom of expression
and religion.”
The United States
government called on Saudi Arabia to cancel the flogging and “review
Badawi’s case and sentence,” Ms. Psaki said.
Oh, that’s alright then. Nothing about stopping the billions in military aid the Americans give the Saudi princes.
And while we are in the region, let’s not forget Egypt and the jailing of Australian reporter Peter Greste.
Award-winning
foreign correspondent Peter Greste was arrested in Cairo on December
29, 2013. He had been in Egypt only weeks, working on a short relief
posting as a journalist for an international TV news network.
After a trial which attracted worldwide attention, on June 23,
2014, Peter was convicted of reporting false news and endangering
Egypt’s national security. He was sentenced to seven years jail. He
remains in Cairo’s Tora Prison.
Here’s the text of the Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders), the international organisation that defends journalists’ from government attacks.
Reporters Without Borders welcomes the
participation of many foreign leaders in today’s march in Paris in
homage to the victims of last week’s terror attacks and in defence of
the French republic’s values, but is outraged by the presence of
officials from countries that restrict freedom of information.
On what grounds are representatives of regimes that
are predators of press freedom coming to Paris to pay tribute to Charlie
Hebdo, a publication that has always defended the most radical concept
of freedom of expression?
Reporters Without Borders is appalled by the
presence of leaders from countries where journalists and bloggers are
systematically persecuted such as Egypt (which is ranked 159th out of
180 countries in RWB’s press freedom index), Russia (148th), Turkey
(154th) and United Arab Emirates (118th).
RSF continued:
“We must demonstrate our solidarity with Charlie
Hebdo without forgetting all the world’s other Charlies,” Reporters
Without Borders secretary-general Christophe Deloire said.
“It would be unacceptable if representatives of
countries that silence journalists were to take advantage of the current
outpouring of emotion to try to improve their international image and
then continue their repressive policies when they return home. We must
not let predators of press freedom spit on the graves of Charlie Hebdo.”
The authorities have
announced the presence of Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu,
Egyptian foreign minister Sameh Shoukry, Russian foreign minister Sergei
Lavrov, Algerian foreign minister Ramtane Lamamra, UAE foreign minister
Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan and Gabonese President Ali Bongo.
However, this is only a
partial list. There are several anti-democratic regimes who sent
representatives to Paris who are not on this list. If you want more
names and backgrounds check out this Storify by @DanielWickham93.
The front lines of the march contained dozens of “world leaders” who
turn their backs on media freedom and don’t hesitate to lock up
journalists who expose their crimes and corruption.
The Index on Censorship
publishes annual lists of the worst nations when it comes to
suppression of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. It’s not a
pretty list.
What’s wrong with Turkey? Or, more to the point what is wrong with
Turkey’s president that makes him so determined to fight, like a two
a.m. drunk vowing to take on all comers?
In the past week alone, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and
his allies have launched attacks on his former ally Fethullah Gülen and
his followers, novelists Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak, and even supporters of Istanbul soccer club Besiktas.
It would be foolish to attempt to rank these attacks in terms of
importance or urgency, but the attack on the Gülenites is the most
interesting.
But perhaps the most grotesque of the whole cabinet of horrors in the frontlines of this march is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Israeli government hides behind a curtain of “respectable” Jewish
culture that accuses its enemies of anti-Semitism on a whim; but it is a
murderous regime that commits war crimes on a daily basis — using
children as human shields and murdering journalists without a second
thought.
Here is a full, current list of those journalists who have been killed by the IDF while working in Gaza:
Hamid Abdullah Shehab, “Media 24″ company;
Najla Mahmoud Haj, media activist;
Khalid Hamad, the “Kontnao” Media Production company;
Ziad Abdul Rahman Abu Hin, al-Ketab satellite channel;
Ezzat Duheir, Prisoners Radio;
Bahauddin Gharib, Palestine TV;
Ahed Zaqqout, veteran sports journalist;
Ryan Rami, Palestinian Media Network;
Sameh Al-Arian, Al-Aqsa TV;
Mohammed Daher, editor in al-Resala paper;
Abdullah Vhjan, sports journalist;
Khaled Hamada Mqat, director of Saja news website;
Shadi Hamdi Ayyad, freelance journalist;
photojournalist Mohammed Nur al-Din al-Dairi, works in the Palestinian Network;
journalist Ali Abu Afesh, Doha Center for Media;
Italian journalist Simone Camille, photographer in the Associated Press;
Abdullah fadel Murtaja, former Al-Aqsa TV cameraman;
It should be emphasized that killing of journalists and media
workers is a violation of international law. This crime must be included
in any future investigations into the War on Gaza.
The U.N. Human Rights Council has announced that it has formed an
international commission of inquiry into whether war crimes were
committed in Gaza.
Here’s a brief taste of Michael Rosen’s discomfort.
If I was in Paris, I would feel uncomfortable – to say the least –
feeling that I was marching ‘behind’ or ‘with’ such people. Perhaps,
physically, actually in the streets it will feel different – that there
are two demonstrations – the leaders’ one where these rulers wrap
themselves in flags hoping that their show of care and sympathy will
make them look dignified and honest, and a people’s one where they can
show solidarity and sadness about citizens like themselves being killed
or the free circulation of ideas being stifled.
When
They
The challenge for the new governments in Australia now, is to explain this to big capital.
They
Award-winning
