International:

Well, well, well, now don't the little worms wriggle out of the Australian woodwork hidden in clothes of silver lining. Well perhaps that is a bit to graphic but, in case you didn't know, Peter Jull (the man in the silver lining) WAS the architect of Canada's new indigenous state called Nunavut. This new state becomes reality in 1999.

And Peter Jull? Well he is here in Brisbane advising the Central Land Council on doing the same in Australia... yes divvying the land up into a number of states.

And Peter Jull? Well the author is referred to in his Courier Mail article headed "Canada's Traditional Learning Curve" as and I quote, "Peter Jull is Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre of Democracy, University of Queensland."

So let's see what Jull says:

"The 'underlying blueprint and inspiration' of native title in Australia is an indigenous land and sea claims agreement in Canada's Artic, according to Pauline Hanson.

"Nunavut, the Inuit peopled region in question, is slightly larger than Queensland and is counting down to the election of its first "parliament" in 1999. Like Canada's existing territory governments, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, Nunavut will be self-governing and closely resemble Canadian provinces or Australian states.

About 90% of Nunavut's population are Inuit, the so-called Eskimos, who retain their own language (as well as English) and live in 30 villages with no connecting roads. The National Geographic magazine, now in newsagents, has a wall map, history, article and photos of Nunavut.

"It includes an interview with John Amagoalik, the Inuit leader who envisioned and guided the Nunavut project from the early 1970s. Hanson claims I was "architect of Nunavut" and, although I am proud to have worked for it, I am not its architect.

"Hanson's words about me and her general view of Nunavut as a threat to Australia yields clues as to her source of ideas. An American-sourced extremist "newspaper" published in Melbourne in early 1995 used the same words.

"In other words while denouncing foreign influence in Australia, Hanson may be bringing in some of the least credible notions from abroad herself.

"The newspaper in question had an eight page section headed 'Aboriginal land rights - Prince Philip's indigenist plot to destroy Australia', and claimed the late Dr "Nugget" Coombs and I were working for Prince Philip to break up the country.

"The Prince's honorary role in a wildlife conservation group was "evidence" of his evil intent.

"Perhaps reference to "Crown lands" in Australian land claims deluded a naive computer nerd in the United States and they were perceived as personal holdings of Prince Philip and the royal family.

"Hanson's conclusions about new Inuit influences and Australian indigenous activism also may surprise the High Court, lawyers and other general readers, familiar with native title concepts from court cases, royal proclamations and philosophical reflections going back centuries before British settlement of Australia.

"Nunavut is not the "separate country" or "separate indigenous nation" as Hanson imagines. Inuit are "joining" Canada, not separating. Long isolated and powerless, ruled by white officials, Inuit are gaining rights as Canadians including the right to govern their region.

"One cold afternoon in 1983 in a village by Hudson Bay, a priest from Europe who had spent half a century in Nunavut told a community meeting that Inuit should insist on their ownership and sovereignty of the Artic, rejecting Canada. Amagoalik replied that Inuit had occupied the land for thousands of years but believed it better to share in Canada's future than to separate.

"Nunavut will be a startlingly different member of the Canadian federation when seated around the conference table with prime minister and premiers at the first ministers' meetings where so much Canadian policy is decided. With unique outlooks on indigenous needs, ecologically sustainable development and the perils of resource extraction, the Inuit will have much to offer Canada's jaded southern leaders.

"As for my role, years before I ever imagined living here, Australian diplomats in Canada sent visiting ministers and officials to me for briefings. I slowly was 'discovered' by those, including Coombs, looking for someone who knew about northern hemisphere indigenous politics and policies.

"Virtually all my articles, talks and interviews during the past ten years have been invited by Australians. Sharing information and enabling people to make up their minds is how modern society works. Change is driven by people picking up or transmitting information. Television, e-mail, Internet and older media drown out any person or organisation.

"I'm glad Hanson didn't know I am a disciple of the late Marshall McLuhan who coined the term "the global village". He would see today his prophecy come true: that when all inter-connected electronically we are prey to shocks, sensations or paranoia instantly, without preparation, just as foreign exchange markets, global mourning for Princess Diana and the Hanson phenomenon have illustrated."

I don't know about you, but this is scary stuff.... confirmation that Jull's role here is to oversee Australia being broken into a number of Australian indigenous states... another North American import - hey they run Australia anyway don't they? Look who runs all the major telecommunication companies, half the big four banks etc.... bloody Yanks... so let's import another expert from North America and create more little Australian "cogs" in their vision of a global village!

Where do we fit in? We don't. Now go back and play with your toys in the corner.

By the way let me assure you Hanson's source of Jull being the architect was not as he describes it... no sir!

The source of the information was "Indigenous Peoples and environmental management; a review of Canadian regional agreements and their potential application to Australia: Part I", authored by Richardson et al. Quoted Mick Dodson. Peter Jull's own speeches.

You will recall the enormous positive publicity given to Cheryl Kernot by the mainstream media when she defected to the Australian Labor Party.

Well, just who is Cheryl Kernot, and why does she hate Pauline Hanson so?

Today we start unravelling some of the hidden views of one Cheryl Kernot... believe me it is not a pretty site... guess that is why she fits in so well with the Australian Labor Party.

Comparison of the differing views of Cheryl Kernot and Pauline Hanson on acceptable family values:

Cheryl Kernot	Pauline Hanson
believes that gay and lesbian couples should be: able to adopt children. redefined as 'families'. Kernot is a key member of the drive by the Uniting Church to embrace gay and lesbian ministers saying, "The Uniting Church is the only church I could belong to. It's progressive, inclusive and has a strong sense of social justice and speaks up."	believes in the traditional family founded on a mum, dad, living happily with their children. does not approve of gay and lesbian relationships but says that "what they do behind closed doors is their business". Hanson is a traditionalist with roots founded in a traditional church and family upbringing.

Looks like Alan Bond's attempts to keep the Australian Federal Police (AFP) from questioning his financial intermedetiary, Jurg Bollag, has fallen on deaf ears with Justice Merkel dismissing their joint application in Melbourne's Federal Court to have the investigation stopped.

However, in the old legal rag and tag game of making money Tony Howard QC said that his client, Alan Bond, would appeal the decision.

The AFP interview with Bollag is scheduled for earl next week.

An interesting perspective from aus.politics:

On that, early last August, shortly before leaving oz, I heard an ABC radio interview where Don Morris, of The Australian Tourist Commission, was being asked to comment on whether the Australian tourist industry was likely to suffer as a result of a decline in Asian tourists because of Mrs Hanson. His response was in the affirmative, and that the damage was likely to be very grave indeed.

Back only a few days, I heard Mr Morris being asked on ABC radio this morning whether the Australian tourist industry was likely to suffer as a result of a decline in Asian tourists because of the economic downturn in Asia. His response was that, if there was any damage at all, it would only be minimal. because Asian tourists are such a teensy percentage - less than 20%- of overall tourist numbers in Australia!

Just another bureaucrat doing his damnedest to keep his job by keeping his political masters happy... one think so.

Political:

"President Suharto has been in power for over thirty years and during that time he and his family have profited billions, much of it under circumstances that would not be allowed in Australia." While she raised her question in Parliament that motley mob of no-hopers known as the Coalition and Labor Party federal MPs made denigrating noises....

She received support for her question from an unexpected source - Greens Senator Bob Brown who called her question "quite legitimate" and that Indonesia did have an abysmal human rights record.

You might recall that some time ago we threw Au$1.4 billion at Thailand in a currency swap... a fat lot of good that did with the Thai baht continuing to crash and Australia now holding a fraction of the value of the currency bought... so we are about to do the same again with Indonesia... we are on a hiding second to none, and then next week these despot governments will be hollering at us and excluding us from potential business deals like the Malaysians did with the defence boat contract...

Under You Say below you will read of one hundred people being retrenched the day Howard announces this multi-billion dollar currency swap... "Over 100 of my workmates have been retrenched today. The same day that John Howard gives another BILLION DOLLAR hand-out overseas...." so who the heck are we in Australia? Do we have a soul... or was it sold some time ago by the mainstream politicians?

In reality we should probably just be called "soaks".... the regional country you pussy-foot to when in trouble but denigrate when it suits you.

You Say:

Subject: Comments on Australian News of the Day

I'm bloody angry. Over 100 of my workmates have been retrenched today.

The same day that John Howard gives another BILLION DOLLAR hand-out overseas. Pauline Hanson seems to be the only Pollie asking why.

You're a wanker Howard! A question for you. "Why don't you care about Australians??????"

from
S.E. Wagger.

Subject: 'genocide'

Dear Editor

Having been bandied about so freely by the compassion industry, the word 'genocide' like the word 'racist' has almost become meaningless in Australia. Dr Ron Brunton makes this point in an excellent article in the IPA Review, October 1997.

Regarding HREOC's 'stolen generation' report he writes, "having told Australia that respected individuals and institutions committed the ultimate crime against humanity, the report makes no suggestion that those responsible should be brought to trial. This is despite the fact that the Geneva Convention ...insists on the need to punish people who have incited, attempted or committed genocide, or who have complicity in genocide, whether these are the legitimate rulers, public officials or private individuals.

In other words while individuals who cannot pay traffic fines may be sent to jail, genocide means that you can just say you are sorry. Australia has either witnessed the ultimate act of moral posturing or the nadir of moral confusion."

Bravo Dr Brunton. Over to you, Sir Ronald Wilson. If you were fair dinkum why did you not recommend charges be laid against the Australians who committed 'genocide'?

Antonia Feitz

Subject: "Them and us" commentary

Your commentary on the so-called Easton affair is shallow and monocled.

Some ministers' testimonies were claimed by the media as corroborating the initial statements of Keith Wilson, when they did not. For example, Graham Edwards is often cited as one who corroborated Wilson when he stated that he objected in a group gathering to the use of the Easton petition. He could not remember whether he made his objection in Cabinet, or even in the presence of Dr Lawrence.

There are letters date stamped and signed which were cited as proving Dr Lawrence had knowledge of the petition prior to its tabling. None were signed by Dr Lawrence, and it is clear from statements made by her support staff at the time that she had not seen the letters before the petition was tabled.

There are numerous instances where evidence fails to support the case against Dr Lawrence, yet was claimed as damning by the media. Also, there were testimonies which supported Dr Lawrence's recollections - your commentary ignores this.

The drama which embroiled Dr Lawrence was based on an assumed causal relationship between her alleged prior knowledge of the petition and Penny Easton's suicide. Many media reports (including your commentary) hanged hats on this assumption, and failed to consider the may other factors.

Your commentary seems based on the glut of misinterpretation which was rife at the time.

Paul McLeod

Personal trivia, from the global office:

Have a good one.

#

See GLOBE International for other world news.