Markets & Justice

Markets & Justice
Freely operating markets yield a just outcome?

White Australia Has A Black History

White Australia Has A Black History

Monday 19 January 2015

Asylum seekers on #Manus Island; the future of the #Great Barrier Reef; #Invasion Day; and the history of the #Aboriginal Tent Embassy are vying for our attention.


Emergency rally: Support asylum seekers on Manus Island. No forced relocation to Lorengau

Wednesday, January 21, 5:30pm. Over 700 asylum seekers are on hunger strike on Manus Island, over 200 have collapsed and required treatment. They fear for their lives if they are resettled at Longerau on PNG. One Wilson security guard recently told them: ‘You should keep on hunger strike and die here, because you will be killed as soon as you are outside.’ In retaliation against the protests even those not participating in the hunger strike have been refused food and water for two days. The first eight refugees are due to be forced to Longerau on January 22. No forced resettlement! No violence against hunger strikers! Close Manus and all the detention camps! State Library, 328 Swanston St, City. Organised by Refugee Action Collective.

Rally: Defend the Great Barrier Reef

Sunday, January 25, 11am. The Australian government plans to create the world's largest coal export terminal at Abbott Point near Bowen in Queensland. Dredging for the terminal will dump mountains of spoil in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It's time to stand up for the world's largest living organism, our Great Barrier Reef, a national treasure and one of the seven wonders of the world. O'Donnell Gardens, Lower Esplanade, St Kilda.

Rally: Invasion Day

Monday, January 26, 10:30am. January 26 is not only a day of mourning for us as Indigenous people but a day to make our voices heard, to take a stand. Invasion Day is a day to demonstrate our resistance to colonization and genocide. We have never ceded our sovereignty, and remain committed to the cause of decolonization. We are asking people to bring flowers with them to leave on the steps of parliament in commemoration of those killed at the hands of continued genocidal practices: the massacres, Black deaths in custody, stolen generations, and the onslaught of assimilation. All welcome to march with us. Parliament House steps, Spring St, City. Organised by Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance.

Film Screening: Ningla A-Na (Hungry for our land)

Friday, February 6, 6:30pm (meal from 6pm). A rare additon to the study of Australian History. Made in 1972, Ningla A-Na  records the events surrounding the establishment of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy on the lawns of Parliament House. It incorporates interviews with black activists, the work of the National Black Theatre, Aboriginal Legal Service and Aboriginal Medical Service, plus footage from the demonstrations and arrests at the embassy. Suggested donation $10/$5. Resistance Centre, Level 5, 407 Swanston St, City (opposite RMIT). Presented by Green Left Weekly

Friday 16 January 2015

Thursday 15 January 2015

We need to get our mind off our waist lines and on to the lines of waste that we are creating

Wednesday 14 January 2015

Pope Francis does Interfaith ... but


Wage Theft - defrauding workers in the U.S.A. Workers are supported by Interfaith Worker Justice.

In Australia, we have a system of wage justice which, while it is not perfect, is far away from the experience of many workers in the USA. While the phrase "wage theft" is rarely heard in Australia, many of the actions cited in this video as wage theft do occur in Australia. They are usually dealt with by the Fair Work Commission or the relevant trade union. To find out more about Interfaith Worker Justice, please go here.

Post by Interfaith Worker Justice.

Cross-posted with permission from
Ballarat Interfaith Network's blog,
Beside The Creek

An ever-increasing problem: antibiotic resistance: restricting antibiotic and meat intake can be part of the solution

Tuesday 13 January 2015

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AND SOVEREIGNTY

AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION ON FACEBOOK - 
THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AND SOVEREIGNTY

Brigid O'Carroll Walsh shared Bernie Sanders's photo.
4 hrs · 
Which one of our Australian politicians - all parties and independents included - has ever made a statement similar to this? I can't think of any.
Like ·  · 
  • Di Perkins, Michael Croft and Megan Anne like this.
  • Brigid O'Carroll Walsh Michael Croft Is "National Sovereignty" the same as or equal to Tribalism? Are there good points to such tribalism or sovereignty? I ask this because I sometimes wonder about social cohesion - which is easier to see in less populous nations. Is there a middle ground between claustrophobic tribalism and the rampant anonymity of an internationalism that is footloose, feckless and fancy free and with only slight ties and loyalty to any community.
    Like · Reply · 42 mins
    • Michael Croft No, they are not the same thing, although some will equate nationalism to tribalism as they share some similar characteristics. The "ism" is the issue in both cases. Sovereignty is the ability of people (or state) to determine their own systems, codes, laws etc. and not have that overridden by others systems, laws, codes etc. Obviously personal sovereignty and state sovereignty clash often, but what is new is corporations being granted rights that challenge those of nation states when they are domiciled elsewhere. The ISDS provisions in the TPP is granting this power. The ISDS provisions are the same as permitting an Australian citizen going into the USA and s/he being permited to suing the USA for the losses incurred because they were not granted a Green Card, whilst simultaneous not paying income tax in the USA because you are not a citizen of the USA. That's how insidious the new trans national corporate vision is for the world. This is already being done to Australia with our plain packaging laws for cigarettes, Australia is being sued by a foreign corporation - hence the myth of national sovereignty, we are no longer in charge of our own law making even if it is to benefit our own citizens.
      Unlike · 1 · 18 mins
    • Brigid O'Carroll Walsh Thank you for this extensive yet simple reply Michael Croft - I have saved this post in my Evernote!
      Like · 1 min · Edited
       

Charlie Hebdo causes Australians to ponder and comment on free speech and the freedom to offend

From The Monthly and its segment, PoliticOz of 13 January 2015

FREE TO OFFEND?

The Australian this morning is running Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson's argument that French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo "could not be printed in Australia under existing restrictions on free speech". Those restrictions, according to Wilson and the Australian, are contained in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA). According to Wilson and the Australian, it's hypocritical for supporters of section 18C to also support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish satirical cartoons.
But the RDA doesn't say anything about religious discrimination, so what Wilson is really concerned about is that he believes 18C prevents the kind of racial stereotyping of certain ethnic groups that has featured in Charlie Hebdo. The Australian reports that Wilson's view is backed by "media law experts" including Simon Breheny of the Institute of Public Affairs (Wilson's former employer) and Justin Quill, "a media lawyer used by the Australian." But despite the views of Wilson and the IPA, the RDA does currently allow offensive material to be published if the purpose of doing so is genuinely in the public interest, which is to be determined by a court.
The current debate about section 18C was sparked by the Federal Court's 2011 ruling against Andrew Bolt. Since that ruling, Bolt has repeatedly claimed that the court had "banned" him from writing about the issue of fair-skinned Aboriginal people receiving scholarships available only to Indigenous people. But Judge Mordy Bromberg had explicitly held that it was not the issue itself that meant that Bolt's articles contravened the RDA. It was the fact that Bolt's articles "contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language", which meant that the articles did not fall under the exemptions in section 18D.
Last week, Jeff Sparrow argued that "we can defend Charlie Hebdo without endorsing" its racialised stereotypes. Michael Brull has a piece in New Matilda today pointing out the hypocrisy among opponents of 18C, who appear to be arguing for the right to offend others on racial grounds and incite racial tension while being quick to shut down any expression that they perceive is harmful to their own interests. It's difficult to imagine why 18C's opponents want to be able to offend on racial grounds against the public interest, though sociological concepts like "white privilege" may explain a fair bit.
Russell Marks
Politicoz Editor