Monday 1st February 1999


This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the National Library of Australia

Subscriber's password check (have your subscription number handy)
Subscribers get free access to the monthly "The Strategy" on-line from April 1998.

Current topical links (available to all readers):
[Links to the MAI]
[One Nation on-line DISCUSSION forum] [One Nation Web Site]
HAVE YOU ORDERED:
[MURDER BY MEDIA, DEATH OF DEMOCRACY IN AUSTRALIA]

from an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's first daily Internet newspaper.
Since October 1995

Canadians take their government to court over the MAI

Here is an extract from this article:

OTTAWA, Jan. 24 , 1999 - An important citizens' initiative is underway in Canada which challenges the legitimacy of the Canadian government to negotiate the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), reports Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa. The initiative questions the authority of the federal government to negotiate an international treaty which derogates fundamental rights as contained in Canada's Constitution.

The Defense of Canadian Liberty Committee (DCLC) organization, based in Vancouver, BC, has taken the Canadian federal government to court (No. T-790-98, initiating documents were filed and served on April 23,1998).

"The MAI is unconstitutional under Canadian law because it gives entrenched rights to international banks and foreign corporations guaranteed by international law which Canadian citizens do not have...This is contrary to the principle of equality before the law which is part of the Canadian constitution enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms", according to the DCLC."

Let us remember that Canadian law is almost identical to that of Australia. Which leads us in to the next story.

More proof that The Courier-Mail is trash

The recently released book "Murder by Media, Death of Democracy in Australia" provides countless examples of how unethical and unbalanced Queensland's major Murdoch owned newspaper is.

One of the examples covered in the book is Shreddergate. The shredding of court documents by the Goss cabinet in 1990 in breach of archiving and court procedures. A criminal offence.

None other than Queensland's Premier, Peter Beattie, chaired the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commission at this time. Well, in Canada, Australia's Shreddergate was used as a prime example by the Krevers Inquiry into their own "Shreddergate" over blood bank records.

Last week that inquiry started having ripple effects around the country as recipients of contaminated blood sued for $300 million.

Have your say on the Australian media on the discussion forum

Here is an extract from that article:

Tainted-blood victims will launch a $300-million lawsuit today against two companies and the federal government over the shipment to Canada of contaminated plasma from U.S. prisons.

The lawsuit follows a series of investigative stories by the Ottawa Citizen last fall that revealed how a U.S. firm with links to Bill Clinton, the U.S. president, collected bad blood from Arkansas prison inmates and sold it abroad.

The class-action lawsuit will involve about 200 haemophiliacs infused with the prison plasma in the early 1980s and who later developed hepatitis C.

In their statement of claim, to be filed in a Toronto court, the victims will allege the companies that distributed the plasma - believed to be infected with HIV and hepatitis C - were negligent, and that federal regulators were also at fault. The victims' lawyer, David Harvey, said yesterday they are seeking about $300-million in damages.

"Everybody turned a blind eye because they were making money, and they sacrificed our lives," said lead plaintiff Mike McCarthy, a Waterloo, Ont., resident with hepatitis C. "There has to be justice here."

By early 1983, U.S. companies that fractionate blood products had stopped buying prison plasma -- at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -- because it was widely understood that, since many inmates practiced unsafe gay sex or were intravenous drug addicts, their blood posed a high risk of carrying the AIDS virus.

However, this didn't stop prison blood centres from selling their products to foreign companies.

Some Americans to Sue Washington Over Immigration?

By Joe Fallon

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - In a speech on immigration and its impact upon U.S. demographics, President Clinton in June 1998 boasted that, “in a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.”

The effect of the U.S. immigration policy since 1965, when for the first time in our nation’s history, Congress permitted massive non-European immigration, has been to perpetrate genocide against the nation’s European-American majority. The term “genocide” is defined here by: (1) international customary law; (2) international treaty law; and (3) U.S. federal law.

Today, federal immigration policy is “deliberately inflicting on” Euro- Americans “conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part,” one of the definitions of genocide set forth in the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948.

This unprecedented devastation of our nation’s majority population during peace time is confirmed by our national Census. In 1960, the Census found European-Americans were 89 percent of the nation’s population, compared with 81 percent in the 1790 Census, an eight-point increase that took more than 100 years.

Yet the 1990 Census found the proportion of “whites” had been reduced to 75 percent of the nation’s population -- an astonishing 14-point drop in just 30 years. (Since the “non-Hispanic white” Census category includes non- European whites from North Africa, the Middle East including Israel, and the former Soviet Union -- who comprise a significant number of immigrants -- the true number of white Americans of European descent is likely far lower. Grassroots efforts to create a “European-American” category in the 2000 Census have been thwarted by federal officials.)

This sharp demographic decline of Euro-Americans is the direct result of immigration policies pursued by the U.S. government since 1965, resulting in 80 to 90 percent of all current legal immigrants coming from Third World sites such as Mexico and other parts of Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. More than 98 percent of all illegal aliens amnestied -- that is, granted legal status -- by the U.S. government also come from the Third World. And nearly all of the estimated 300,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens who settle each year in the U.S. are from the Third World. U.S. Census Bureau projects that by as early as 2050, well within the lifespan of today’s children, European-Americans will be reduced to less than 50 percent of the U.S. population.

In California, Euro-Americans will become a demographic minority in California by the year 2000, in Texas by 2015, and in Florida and New York by 2016. Despite grassroots efforts to stop present genocidal immigration policies, and strong support expressed in every poll of citizens to steeply reduce -- or halt-- immigration, the U.S. government actions are quickly reducing the Euro- American population.

The Strong Case For "Genocide"

Perhaps the only viable course is to charge the U.S. government with the crime of genocide, and seek reparations available under international and federal laws. The suit would charge that since 1965, the immigration policy imposed upon the European-American majority by the U.S. government has been both illegal and unconstitutional, for the following reasons:

1. *This policy violates international customary law against genocide, binding on the U.S. government since its adoption by the U.N. General Assembly on December 9, 1948. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2, Section 702, d, [c] which recognizes international customary law against genocide prohibits “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. While just one of the legal definitions of “group” must be met under this law, European-Americans in fact meet at least two. Racially, they are white; ethnically they are European. Most are Christian; and as 89 percent
2. of the U.S. population in 1960, they defined the nation and shared a common origin.
3. *Congress has recognized international customary law against genocide in U.S. Public Law 95-435. Enacted in 1978, Section 5 (b) states: “It is the sense of the Congress that the Government of the United States should take steps to disassociate itself from any foreign government which engages in the crime of genocide.” Since the Senate did not ratify the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention until 1988 and Uganda, the foreign country specified in this law as guilty of genocide, also was not a signatory to the Convention, U.S. Public Law 95-435 can refer only to international customary law against genocide. By enacting this public law, Congress has recognized both the validity of international customary law against genocide and its applicability to acts of the federal government.
4. *The U.S Constitution, Article I, Section 8 both recognizes international customary law and confers on Congress the power “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.”
5. *The U.S. Supreme Court has held international customary law binding on the U.S. government since Paquete Habana in 1900 (175 U.S. at 708). In that opinion, Justice Gray wrote: “...international law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.”
6. *In 1988, the U.S. Senate ratified the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. Article II, Section C defines genocide in part as “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnic, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Article IV of the Convention guarantees the right to take legal action against the U.S. government and others for violating it, stipulating those who commit genocide “shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals.”
7. *It, thereby, violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.”
8. *It violates U.S. Public Law 100-606 which, in accordance with Article V of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, made the provisions of that Convention federal law. This statute amended Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code by inserting “Chapter 50A -- Genocide”. Section 1091 (a), (4), defines genocide to include act(s) which “subjects the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part” in time of peace or war.
9. *Congress publicly and repeatedly declared that the 1965 Immigration Reform Act would not reduce the proportional size of the European-American majority population. Senator Robert Kennedy insisted that “the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States.” He added this “should set to rest any fear that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic make-up of the United States.” Senator Edward Kennedy, floor manager of the 1965 immigration bill, stated at the onset of Senate hearings that “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset” by this legislation.

Two Separate -- Unequal & Unjust -- U.S. Immigration Policies

Since 1965, the U.S. Congress, President and executive branch and judiciary have actively imposed Third World immigration upon the U.S., where European- Americans have always been the majority population. In stark contrast, Congress has actively opposed immigration policies that would upset the racial/ethnic makeup of five U.S. territories -- American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and the “Free Associated States” of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau -- where non-European peoples form the majority populations, for the express purpose of preserving their respective ethnic majorities.

These distinct immigration policies -- one for the United States, another for five U.S. territories -- show Congress is well aware of the direct relationship between immigration and demography, and is destroying the nation’s European-American racial and ethnic demographic majority deliberately.

Lawsuit Charging Genocide

A lawsuit charging the U.S. government with inflicting genocide upon European- Americans since 1965 via its immigration policies must be brought before the Supreme Court of the United States and simultaneously before other recognized penal tribunals throughout the world.

This lawsuit must make clear that international law against genocide is jus cogens, that is, peremptory thereby nullifying any laws which violate its principles, including all current U.S. immigration laws and policies. The suit must seek “reparations” as defined by international law, specifically to restore the nation’s racial and ethnic mix when the law took effect in 1948.

The objectives of this lawsuit are to have the U.S. Supreme Court rule that:

• U.S. immigration policy violates international and U.S. laws against genocide
• U.S. immigration law, policies, regulations and procedures are therefore null and void
• The U.S. government must re-establish the European-American population to its demographic size, 90 percent, relative to the current population, as of December 9, 1948, the day on which international customary law against genocide took effect
• The U.S. government must adopt and enforce an immigration policy which admits only ethnic Europeans until such time as the European-American population again constitutes 90 percent of the total U.S. population. The government should also actively repatriate non-citizen immigrants to expedite that outcome.

European-Americans meet the legal requirements for standing required to file this lawsuit. They have (a) suffered some actual or threatened injury, (b) this injury can be traced to the challenged official conduct and (c) there is a substantial likelihood the alleged injuries can be redressed by a judicial decision in their favor.

Because the ongoing destruction of the European-American population is a serious legal, moral and cultural issue, and because the pace of that destruction is escalating, an immediate judicial stay on all related U.S. immigration laws must be sought from the court. This stay would halt all admissions into the U.S. of all non-European immigrants, refugees, asylees, parolees, foreign students, temporary workers, etc. until the Supreme Court can rule on the lawsuit.

European-Americans satisfy the legal requirements for obtaining a stay since (a) they can establish legal standing, (b) they are suffering severe injuries from ongoing U.S. immigration policies, and (c) they can show that the benefits to the European-American population of a court-ordered stay on all U.S. immigration laws, regulations, and policies outweigh any possible adverse impact such a stay could have on others.

If the Supreme Court or other recognized tribunal rules in favor of European- Americans’ charge of genocide, a follow-up lawsuit must be filed immediately charging foundations, individuals, institutions, and organizations directly and indirectly responsible -- through lobbying, legislation, and other activities -- for U.S. immigration policy since 1965 with violating international law against genocide.

Among such targets may be the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Emma Lazarus Foundation/Open Society Institute, who have provided grants to MALDEF, La Raza, and various pro-immigration, open-borders advocacy and community groups; ZPG; numerous public officials; the Democrat and Republican National Committees; and members of Congress.

Under both international and federal laws against genocide, the courts can order these entities to pay both financial compensation and punitive damages to European-Americans harmed by their activities. U.S. Public Law 100-606 also provides for imprisonment of those found guilty of the crime of genocide.

---------
Joseph E. Fallon is a published author and researcher on the topics of immigration and American demography. He can be reached by email here.

---------
Additional information regarding the U.S. immigration statistics can be found here.

Tell us your views on the Immigration Discussion Forum

The Subsidised 'Free' Market - Graham Strachan

Here is an extract:

In the book ‘Globalisation: Demise of the Australian Nation’, I wrote under the heading ‘The Competition Lie’ [p. 59]: “....having used the Hilmer ‘reforms’ to induce the government to eliminate assistance to the competitive (small/medium sized Australian-owned) business sector, [transnational corporations (TNCs)] are now demanding and receiving government protection and subsidies paid for by taxpayers.”

The protection and subsidies take various forms, including the underwriting of trade contracts with Asian countries, the propping up of the private health funds faced with membership defections (they feel better now), and federal government subsidies for TNC research and development.

But they also include what is euphemistically called ‘direct subsidising’. What’s that? A ‘direct subsidy’ is another name for a bribe of taxpayers’ money, paid by the federal government to induce a TNC to set up here, or stay here. The Hawke government set the precedent when it gave Kodak money to reverse a decision to close down a plant in Victoria. The tradition was still alive and well in August 1997 when the Howard government paid the chemical giant du Pont $60 million to keep manufacturing textiles as tariffs were reduced. Now there is more taxpayer money being given away, proving that the ‘free market’ and ‘laissez-faire capitalism’ are figments of the academic economist’s imagination.

Have your say on the Globalisation discussion forum

Spelling error

Before you all dance with glee at the sweetness of seeing a mis-spelling in my letter complaining about malapropisms, I checked and it wasn't me. See? - cut and pasted from my copy:

Subject: Paff's gaffe
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:36:54 +1000

(I admit I was a bit worried when I saw it)

Antonia

Media Goons:

> These goons in the media have a lot to learn - as we are now in the age of
> enlightenment... their control over what people, see, hear and read is
> disappearing fast - but not fast enough.
>
You've got them casting about nervously for escape routes, Scott. They are going into damage control mode right now - in as face saving a way as possible, of course. You still need to look carefully to spot the evidence, but it's there and its growing daily.

No less than the Courier Mail's chief reporter Tony Koch - a shameless and rabid critic of One Nation - dipped his toe even deeper into One Nation waters today - apparently none the worse for broking ranks with his ATSIC-worshipping peers a month or two ago.

In his Perspectives contribution on Page 19 of today's Courier Mail (30-Jan-1999), Koch is complaining about the 300,000 government supplied syringes he estimates druggies have littered and boobytrapped Brisbane's public places with - including children's playgrounds - last year alone.

Quoting Tony Koch:

"And why should the citizens of places such as Inala have to bear the social stigma that is thrust upon them by the criminal (drug) dealers and their clients who choose that suburb - or any other - to go about their degrading business?

"And it is not just locals involved. The "clients" come from all over Brisbane and the southern suburbs to buy their product from local dealers - principally Vietnamese - and then return home."
(additional emphasis mine. unquote)

Of course every sensible person living in Brisbane who is not totally dependent on his TV set for companionship, has known that for ages. The difference is now, instead of denying it, THE COURIER MAIL HAS FINALLY ADMITTED IT, and has given up its former embargo on letting Aussie kids find out that criminals of non-European ancestry are also capable of doing bad things.

Fair-minded Australians will see that the Courier Mail is not tarnishing the reputation of law abiding Vietnamese Australians, any more than Pauline Hanson did when she tried to tell us the same thing years ago.

It will be fascinating to see what straws Koch is forced to grasp next time he wants to denigrate Pauline Hanson or One Nation. The only real evidence he had (weak as it was) were quotations similar to his above which refer to ATSIC Aborigines and Asians from Pauline Hanson's maiden speech.

Search though they might, our indomitable newshounds have not been able to find any other evidence of One Nation racism (tenuous though it was), and have had to flog Pauline's parliamentary maiden speech until it became the best known and most frequently quoted parliamentary document in Australia.

As a normal everyday Aussie, I for one appreciate what you have done, Scott. You have finally kicked out from under the Murdoch press the only two props they have found durable enough to maintain their anti-One Nation rage.

What amateurish ruses will they resort to, before finally giving it up as a lost cause, and get back to reporting the truth?

Regards
Neville Duguid

Have your say on the Australian media on the discussion forum

Support from UK

dear sir

my name is oliver joly. i have been watching Ms Hanson's career with great interest; she is one gutsy lady.i was very sorry that the people of oz dident sit up and take notice of her; i am 52and english.i have watched over the years what excessive immigration can do to a countryand believe me england is no longer.the majoity of english people have been more than welcoming but it all gets thrown back in our faces.i have been living in ireland for the pat ten years because i couldn't stand it any longer.i also lived in oz 20yrs ago was there for 4yrs and could see then how things were going. you have a lot of support outside of oz. so keep up the good work and if there is anthing i could do to assist please dont hesitate to contact me.

ps exuse typing not one of my strong points.

Name withheld (UK)

A Rip-off?

The Editor,
The Northern Star,
LISMORE

Dear Editor,

"An ENEMY of the PEOPLE" was the title of the film screened on Packer's Nine Network Television on Sunday Morning. Anyone who dares to question the validity of the "expert" survey (from Melbourne?)upon which the Council relies will be publicly branded an enemy of this City.

Fortunately for Council, few citizens of Lismore district will have seen the film and been unduly affected by it.

However there is a virtual certainty that the development will be rammed through at the Council Meeting on 2/2/99 and the citizenry manipulated just as effectively as the one in the abovementioned film.

It is safe to assume that the vested interests will resolve to commit the next four generations of ratepayers to substantially funding the establishment and many hundreds of thousands of dollars of annual "trading" losses for an Aquatic and Leisure Centre almost only for the use of the transitory population of the local University.

Well paid people in significant numbers will be required to staff the operation for all the long hours that are contemplated and, if the wider community - all of whom are entitled to join the SCU Student Representative Council and pay its fees - elect to use the complex, the membership of other bodies in the city will very certainly drop off dramatically.

No adequate arrangements are being made for the provision of lower than low cost omnibus transport to and from the proposed centre at convenient times, including nights and weekends, from the communities up to fifty kilometres away who are expected to rush to use the facility. There is already a massive parking problem at SCU.

Interestingly no reference will be made to the existing "community assets" that have been appropriated by the University,2NCRFM and Linc TV, for fear that someone will realise that the Pool will be just as effectively confiscated as the University reclaims the buildings in the "Centre" that it is currently offerring as "in kind" contributions.

Local Government is the "democratic" form closest to the people but is it now merely another Corporation with a power hungry board of directors?

Sincerely,
J o n M. A x t e n s

@notd suggestion

Amongst your busy schedule of answering E-mail, researching the proproganda press, One Nation Web Keeping, and all the other busy things we never find time for....

Have you considered creating one of those News Headlines inserts that are displayed on some web pages with the scolling headline.

It would be a great thing for One Nation Branch web sites, like Nepean Branch for instance????

Regards
Brian Zarth.

from the global office:

Another perfect day in paradise.

Have a good one.

This Ring Name site is owned by One Nation. Want to join the One Nation ring? [Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [Random] [Next 5] [List Sites]

exclusive to  (how to) subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day:

Launch of "Murder by Media, Death of Democracy in Australia" - 22nd to 24th January 1999
One Nation's Queensland State Conference - 27th to 29th November 1998
Dual Citizenship and politicians- 20th November 1998
Where Prize Turkeys Gather - 17th November 1998
A time with Heather Hill - exclusive interview with One Nation's first Federal Representative - 25th October 1998
A day with Pauline - exclusive interview after the Federal Election - 22nd October 1998
It's YOUR ABC? - 17th October 1998
The Federal Election - 3rd October 1998

Return to Australian National News of the Day

#

See GLOBE International for other world news.