Recent events have opened a division between the NSW state and the Federal government over a propsal to ban a radical Islamist group. Hizb ut-Tahrir recently held a meeting of about five hundred followers at the Lakemba mosque. It is headed by Indonesian firebrand Ismail Yusanto who calls for all Australian Muslims of military age to begin training for jihad. Yusanto calls for the formation of a world wide Islamic superstate ruled over by a Caliphate - and for that state to embrace Sharia law.
This organization is banned in most of Europe and many other countries but the Australian government has resisted implementing a ban because so far it has not broken any Australian law. Premier Morris Iemma sees it as a call to jihad in this country and wants it banned.
The main stumbling block for Hizb ut-Tahrir is it's call for both Sunni and Sh'ite to take part in jihad. Given the secular difference between these branches of Islam in Iraq joint action would be a big ask. He should note the century of violence in Northern Ireland when two branches of Christianity declined to worship a common God.
The sad thing is that the majority of the near half million Muslims in Australia simply want to live their lives free of strife. The lunatic fringe that seeks to hate all others than their particular branch of Islam makes them suspect in the eyes of western Australians. The media gives prominence to the ravings of people like Ismail Yusanto - and this may influence Islamic youth which - like western youth - is in perpetual revolt against authority.
There have been many others with grand designs on world domination like Ismail Yusanto.
Within the memory of many people names like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin spring to mind. Both failed because their method of achieving domination involved the suppression of individual freedom. When it comes to the crunch, Australian Muslims may value their way of life in Australia more than oppression under a theocracy !
Tuesday, 30 January 2007
Monday, 29 January 2007
The water option.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie shocked residents of Brisbane and the Gold Coast when he announced that - from next year - the water that will flow from theitr taps will be recycled water.
Beattie had advanced plans to put this issue to a referendum covering the eighteen councils that will be involved - and costing ten million dollars. This is now cancelled because Beattie says that on the subject of using recycled water " there is no choice " !
This is probably a situation that most of Australia will untimately face. When the drought breaks - and untimately it will - we will be faced with the reality that our ever expanding population is relying on a static source of water. The outflow from even full dams with be more than the inflow from rain sources
Rejection of recycled water is mostly mind over matter. The idea of that which we flush down the toilet reappearing from our kitchen tap is repulsive - and yet this same recycled water is in purer form that the existing water coming from our dams.
It is worth remembering the warning issued to those who install their own home rainwater tanks. Use it for gardening, filling the washing machine and washing the car - but don't drink it !
The same pollutants which contaminate falling rain go equally into home rainwater tanks - and our dams. The filtering process that will clean and purify recycled water will ensure a much better produce than we are getting now.
New South Wales faces a dilemma. The government is facing a state election on March 24 and the last thing the Premier would want would be a debate on recycled water at this stage - so all our eggs are in the desalination basket. Once the election is over it will be a whole new ball game. !
Beattie had advanced plans to put this issue to a referendum covering the eighteen councils that will be involved - and costing ten million dollars. This is now cancelled because Beattie says that on the subject of using recycled water " there is no choice " !
This is probably a situation that most of Australia will untimately face. When the drought breaks - and untimately it will - we will be faced with the reality that our ever expanding population is relying on a static source of water. The outflow from even full dams with be more than the inflow from rain sources
Rejection of recycled water is mostly mind over matter. The idea of that which we flush down the toilet reappearing from our kitchen tap is repulsive - and yet this same recycled water is in purer form that the existing water coming from our dams.
It is worth remembering the warning issued to those who install their own home rainwater tanks. Use it for gardening, filling the washing machine and washing the car - but don't drink it !
The same pollutants which contaminate falling rain go equally into home rainwater tanks - and our dams. The filtering process that will clean and purify recycled water will ensure a much better produce than we are getting now.
New South Wales faces a dilemma. The government is facing a state election on March 24 and the last thing the Premier would want would be a debate on recycled water at this stage - so all our eggs are in the desalination basket. Once the election is over it will be a whole new ball game. !
Sunday, 28 January 2007
Dental health.
The Australian medical service - Medicaire - is criticised by some but nobody in this country should go without medical treatment. Many doctors bulk bill, hence there is no charge to the patient and all citizens are entitled to free treatment in a public hospital. Those who can't find a bulk billing doctor can obtain care by attending the outpatients department of a hospital.
Unfortunately this does not include dental care. There is a government funded dental health clinic, but the wait for treatment is measured in years - and the rules that apply are draconian. For instance, should a patient with several teeth in need of a filling finally get to the head of the queue - just one tooth will be treated. That patient then goes to the back of the queue and must wait years until his or her turn again arises.
Dental health can impinge on general health , yet a patient with a heart murmur will get immediate treatment - but a patient in pain from toothache and abscesses will be ignored.
Dental health may be a pivot point at the coming Federal election. It has been ignored for too long and both sides of politics are looking over their shoulders - wondering which will be the first to pop the genie out of the bottle.
If either party makes dental health an election issue then both sides will have no option than to move on that subject. Including dental health in Medicaire will cost money - an incredible amount of money - but it could be make or break in winning the election.
It could be that 2008 will be the year than dental health comes under the Medicaire umbrella !
Unfortunately this does not include dental care. There is a government funded dental health clinic, but the wait for treatment is measured in years - and the rules that apply are draconian. For instance, should a patient with several teeth in need of a filling finally get to the head of the queue - just one tooth will be treated. That patient then goes to the back of the queue and must wait years until his or her turn again arises.
Dental health can impinge on general health , yet a patient with a heart murmur will get immediate treatment - but a patient in pain from toothache and abscesses will be ignored.
Dental health may be a pivot point at the coming Federal election. It has been ignored for too long and both sides of politics are looking over their shoulders - wondering which will be the first to pop the genie out of the bottle.
If either party makes dental health an election issue then both sides will have no option than to move on that subject. Including dental health in Medicaire will cost money - an incredible amount of money - but it could be make or break in winning the election.
It could be that 2008 will be the year than dental health comes under the Medicaire umbrella !
Saturday, 27 January 2007
Earthquake ?
Many Sydney people are pondering the possibility of an earthquake - following the claim by academics that the quake that devastated Newcastle two decades ago was primarily caused by underground coal mining.
Sydney is removed from " the ring of fire " - seismic activity that runs through New Zealand, across the Pacific and continues through New Guinea and into Asia. We get the odd tremor every few years, but damage causing tremblors are virtually unknown.
It is a reasonable hypothesis. Long wall mining leaves vast caverns and it could well be that subsidence under Newcastle was the trigger for that quake.
What concerns some Sydney people is the plan by the New South Wales government to supplement the Sydney water supply by drawing from the aquifers in the southern highlands.These aquifers hold about three years supply of Sydney's needs - and will take between five and seven years to refill when depleted.
Thats a lot of water - and a lot of air space underground when the water is removed. Water can not be compressed, hence subsidence is impossible when that air space is filled with liquid but it's removal introduces a risk that has not so far been taken into account.
At this stage it is conjecture. There is no proof that tapping the acquifers will introduce risk, and yet there is also no rebuttal to the theory.
Sydney is desperate for water and those acquifers must be tempting to government planners - but if they go ahead with their plan to tap them - and somewhere down the track there is a devastating earthquake the blame will rightly reside on their shoulders.
Tapping acquifers is an unknown science. The government may be wise to avoid that risk - and go ahead with plans for a major desalination plant instead !
Sydney is removed from " the ring of fire " - seismic activity that runs through New Zealand, across the Pacific and continues through New Guinea and into Asia. We get the odd tremor every few years, but damage causing tremblors are virtually unknown.
It is a reasonable hypothesis. Long wall mining leaves vast caverns and it could well be that subsidence under Newcastle was the trigger for that quake.
What concerns some Sydney people is the plan by the New South Wales government to supplement the Sydney water supply by drawing from the aquifers in the southern highlands.These aquifers hold about three years supply of Sydney's needs - and will take between five and seven years to refill when depleted.
Thats a lot of water - and a lot of air space underground when the water is removed. Water can not be compressed, hence subsidence is impossible when that air space is filled with liquid but it's removal introduces a risk that has not so far been taken into account.
At this stage it is conjecture. There is no proof that tapping the acquifers will introduce risk, and yet there is also no rebuttal to the theory.
Sydney is desperate for water and those acquifers must be tempting to government planners - but if they go ahead with their plan to tap them - and somewhere down the track there is a devastating earthquake the blame will rightly reside on their shoulders.
Tapping acquifers is an unknown science. The government may be wise to avoid that risk - and go ahead with plans for a major desalination plant instead !
Friday, 26 January 2007
The water crisis.
The Federal government has proposed a plan to drought proof Australia. It has offered to spend ten billion dollars over ten years to save the mighty Murray/Darling river systems which flow through the eastern states.
The plan will require the states to give up their constitutional rights to manage these rivers and the Feds warn that they will need to buy back irrigation allocations from farmers who are trying to farm land that should be returned to pasture.
Many farms will need to be relocated to areas such as northern Queensland and northern Western Australia where there is water in abundance - thanks to the annual monsoon - and thus crop yeilds can be sustained.
The Federal largesse will be shared with country towns which will be required to cover delivery systems to reduce evapouration, build additional storage and implement recycling to save precious drinking water.
So far the states have been making cooperative noises, but such is the power of politics that the Labor dominated states and territories must be pondering the political significance of giving up their water powers to Canberra.
In the past, state governments have acted in their state interests by bestowing irrigation rights to farmers. In many cases this was for irrigation of arid land and resulted in an unsustainable draw on the rivers that are the vascular system of this country.
It is helpful that many farmers are conservative voters and Labor should not pay a price at the polls for cooperation. At the same time, state premiers should be relieved at having shifted the problem of water from their shoulders to that of the Federal government.
In a reverse scenarion, should the states buck this transfer they could well face a serious backlash from city and country voters who are concerned at global warming and know we are facing a critical water situation. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd is backing the Federal proposal and is urging the states to go alongh with it.
From here the wrangling will get under way. The states will no doubt want alterations to the plan and the Feds would be wise to consider such requests - but in the long run a Federal management of this mighty river system - removed from state pork barrelling - is the only way this country will get a sustainable supply of water to cities, towns and farmers !
The plan will require the states to give up their constitutional rights to manage these rivers and the Feds warn that they will need to buy back irrigation allocations from farmers who are trying to farm land that should be returned to pasture.
Many farms will need to be relocated to areas such as northern Queensland and northern Western Australia where there is water in abundance - thanks to the annual monsoon - and thus crop yeilds can be sustained.
The Federal largesse will be shared with country towns which will be required to cover delivery systems to reduce evapouration, build additional storage and implement recycling to save precious drinking water.
So far the states have been making cooperative noises, but such is the power of politics that the Labor dominated states and territories must be pondering the political significance of giving up their water powers to Canberra.
In the past, state governments have acted in their state interests by bestowing irrigation rights to farmers. In many cases this was for irrigation of arid land and resulted in an unsustainable draw on the rivers that are the vascular system of this country.
It is helpful that many farmers are conservative voters and Labor should not pay a price at the polls for cooperation. At the same time, state premiers should be relieved at having shifted the problem of water from their shoulders to that of the Federal government.
In a reverse scenarion, should the states buck this transfer they could well face a serious backlash from city and country voters who are concerned at global warming and know we are facing a critical water situation. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd is backing the Federal proposal and is urging the states to go alongh with it.
From here the wrangling will get under way. The states will no doubt want alterations to the plan and the Feds would be wise to consider such requests - but in the long run a Federal management of this mighty river system - removed from state pork barrelling - is the only way this country will get a sustainable supply of water to cities, towns and farmers !
Thursday, 25 January 2007
Shark attack !
Abalone diver Eric Nerhus ( 41 ) had an amazing experience earlier this week when he ran headlong into a great white shark while diving near Eden on the far south coast of New South Wales.
The shark swallowed him - to the extent that his head, shoulders and one arm were within the shark's mouth. The encounter crushed his diving mask, breaking his nose and the shark's teeth ripped into the flesh on his back, chest and across his rib cage.
He reports that he jabbed the shark in the eye - and the shark released him.
Shark experts put a different slant on the story. The area where Nerhus was attacked is near a seal colony - and seals are the preferred meal for sharks. At the time the water was cloudy and it is likely that the shark mistook the diver for a seal.
Sharks are intelligent animals. Nerhus was wearing a leaded vest and the shark would have instantly recognised that what it had in it's mouth was not a seal - and consequently it spat him out.
Nerhus should buy a lottery ticket. It was an amazing escape and for whatever reason the shark released him he should be thankful.
It seems that in recent weeks great white sharks have been more prevalent and have been coming closer to shore. While air temperatures have been at record highs, water temperatures have been at record lows. Wind action has driven colder water closer to shore and beachgoers complain that the water - usually about 21 c at this time of year - has ranged from 14 to 17 c.
In fact, at a recent religious ceremony when a cross was thrown into the water to be retrieved by the faithful swimmers - some of the contestants emerged with mild hypothermia.
It seems that miracles do happen - but some people will insist that this is just another example of climate change !
The shark swallowed him - to the extent that his head, shoulders and one arm were within the shark's mouth. The encounter crushed his diving mask, breaking his nose and the shark's teeth ripped into the flesh on his back, chest and across his rib cage.
He reports that he jabbed the shark in the eye - and the shark released him.
Shark experts put a different slant on the story. The area where Nerhus was attacked is near a seal colony - and seals are the preferred meal for sharks. At the time the water was cloudy and it is likely that the shark mistook the diver for a seal.
Sharks are intelligent animals. Nerhus was wearing a leaded vest and the shark would have instantly recognised that what it had in it's mouth was not a seal - and consequently it spat him out.
Nerhus should buy a lottery ticket. It was an amazing escape and for whatever reason the shark released him he should be thankful.
It seems that in recent weeks great white sharks have been more prevalent and have been coming closer to shore. While air temperatures have been at record highs, water temperatures have been at record lows. Wind action has driven colder water closer to shore and beachgoers complain that the water - usually about 21 c at this time of year - has ranged from 14 to 17 c.
In fact, at a recent religious ceremony when a cross was thrown into the water to be retrieved by the faithful swimmers - some of the contestants emerged with mild hypothermia.
It seems that miracles do happen - but some people will insist that this is just another example of climate change !
Wednesday, 24 January 2007
The concept of justice.
More and more Australians are becoming uneasy about the protracted incarceration of terror suspect David Hicks who has spent the past five years at Gitmo without either charges or a trial.
Hicks was an Australian citizen when captured fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. He is now a British citizen, although the British government has made no effort to repatriate him to England, as was the fate of other British detainees found fighting with the Taliban.
To many people there is a vagueness about what wrong Hicks committed. At the time, there was no central government in Afghanistan ruling the entire country - and there still isnt ! The Taliban were invaders imposing their strict brand of Islam and Hicks was a convert. It could be construed that the Taliban - odious as was their outlook - were de-facto rulers trying to repel an invasion by forces from other countries opposed to their regime.
The United States charges that Hicks was trying to kill American troops. He didnt succeed. Now it looks like he will face a " Kangaroo court " which would be legally impossible if it tried to impose it's set rules on even the worst mass murderer in mainland USA. It may accept " hearsay " evidence and even evidence collected by " coercion ". What fine line marks the difference between " coercion " and " torture " ?
Obviously the rules of this court are designed to reach a guilty verdict. What then ? Execution has been ruled out, but does that mean that Hicks may spend the rest of his life in Gitmo ? Will he be denied the conditions American " lifers " expect in American prisons ?
This matter has been handled badly. There is little recognition of what should constitute " justice " in the handling of the case - and it looks like getting worse as it goes along.
It is time the US military disengaged from prosecuting Hicks and handed him over to a normal US court, to be tried on whatever charges within the US justice system. Anything less is to embrace the same sort of " justice " dished out by the Taliban when they were in power !
Hicks was an Australian citizen when captured fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. He is now a British citizen, although the British government has made no effort to repatriate him to England, as was the fate of other British detainees found fighting with the Taliban.
To many people there is a vagueness about what wrong Hicks committed. At the time, there was no central government in Afghanistan ruling the entire country - and there still isnt ! The Taliban were invaders imposing their strict brand of Islam and Hicks was a convert. It could be construed that the Taliban - odious as was their outlook - were de-facto rulers trying to repel an invasion by forces from other countries opposed to their regime.
The United States charges that Hicks was trying to kill American troops. He didnt succeed. Now it looks like he will face a " Kangaroo court " which would be legally impossible if it tried to impose it's set rules on even the worst mass murderer in mainland USA. It may accept " hearsay " evidence and even evidence collected by " coercion ". What fine line marks the difference between " coercion " and " torture " ?
Obviously the rules of this court are designed to reach a guilty verdict. What then ? Execution has been ruled out, but does that mean that Hicks may spend the rest of his life in Gitmo ? Will he be denied the conditions American " lifers " expect in American prisons ?
This matter has been handled badly. There is little recognition of what should constitute " justice " in the handling of the case - and it looks like getting worse as it goes along.
It is time the US military disengaged from prosecuting Hicks and handed him over to a normal US court, to be tried on whatever charges within the US justice system. Anything less is to embrace the same sort of " justice " dished out by the Taliban when they were in power !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)