John Vorster, P.W.Botha and F.W.de Klerk would have been very proud of the Howard/Rudd governments' legislation to control the trade unions and to impose draconian restrictions on them and turn them into criminals.

The Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) has powers that the controllers of the anti-terror legislation can only look upon with envy and wish they had the same dictatorial control.

Below is the flyer for a protest rally to be held outside the Melbourne Magistrate's Court on Tuesday 2 December, and a draft letter for people to copy and  send to the Alternative Liberal Party government in Canberra, protesting at the ABCC's methods of operation.

Star chamber operations should have no place in a country such as Australia, but the sorts of legislation which saw the birth of the ABCC  as one of the outcomes of the Cole Royal Commission into the building industry is just one of a long line of punitive pieces of legislation aimed at destroying the trade union movement in Australia since Malcolm Fraser became Prime minister in 1975.

The trend has been followed by every succeeding government from that time to this.

OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR THE HON. STEPHEN CONROY, MINISTER FOR BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY 

Censorship has failed in the past, is failing now, and will fail in the future. When people want material that governments decide is not in the communities’ interest for them to have, people will work out methods to circumvent the laws which stop them having that material.

In the interests of pointing out to you the futility of attempts to censor the Internet, you should know that the South African apartheid censors, in their ignorance and stupidity, censored a book called ‘Black Beauty”. After the outcry at their crass stupidity, the book was ultimately unbanned.

Political and fiction and non-fiction books and similar material in the form of magazines and journals were taken into South Africa from Mozambique and Swaziland, where such material, particularly in the English language, were not banned.

Australia has a long history of censorship, and most of the attempts of censors here have failed because people are able to obtain items which governments are determined to prevent them from having.

There are so many loopholes in all attempts at censorship that one wonders why governments persist in behaving like big brother and/or nanny.

If you want to control what is available in Australia on the Internet you will have to ultimately close down people’s ability to have the Internet, whether it is broadband or any other way of receiving what is out there.

It may be a good idea for would-be censors to read Antony Loewenstein’s recently published book, “The Blogging Revolution” and see what happens in totalitarian states around the world. Loewenstein’s latest article in The Age online (10 November 2008) included below gives a very good illustration of the hypocrisy of politicians in the realm of censorship. In fact, Kevin Rudd outdid himself yet again today, 11 November 2008, when he spoke about remembering those who have died defending their countries, and that the 21^st century should be one of peace and not war. This is the same politician who is sending more troops to Afghanistan to fight in what has been labelled by those who are involved in fighting there as unwinnable.

The same may be said of your attempts at filtering what may or may not be available on the Internet – you are fighting an unwinnable war, and the sensible approach would be to quit while you are still ahead – if ahead you actually are!

And most interesting of all is the fact that violence is censored in Australia far, far less than anything with the word “sex” in it or relating to it. What are you going to do about web sites which discuss sexual matters in all their shapes and forms – ban them all from the Internet?? 

Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity Melbourne

PO Box 1675

Preston South

Vic 3072                                                              

Government uploads hypocrisy with internet censorship

·         Antony Loewenstein

·         November 10, 2008

BEFORE this year's Beijing Olympic Games, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd chastised the Chinese authorities for blocking full access to the internet for the assembled world media: "My attitude to our friends in China is very simple", he said. "They should have nothing to fear by open digital links with the rest of the world during this important international celebration of sport."

Although Rudd expressed no concern for the average Chinese web user being unable to view tens of thousands of banned websites, his intervention was nevertheless a welcome call for transparency and greater democracy.

But now the Rudd government is working towards implementing an unworkable filtering process in Australia that suggests a misguided understanding of the internet and worrying tendency to censor an inherently anarchic system.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy told Radio National's Media Report recently that the aim of the project is to "protect Australian families and kids from some material that is currently on the net . . . such as child pornography and ultra-violent sites".

Conroy tried to assure a sceptical interviewer that although the idea had been ALP policy for years, "we are committed to work with the industry to see if it is technically feasible".

He further claimed that similar kinds of filtering already exist in UK, Sweden, Norway, France and New Zealand and "there has been no detrimental effect on internet speed or performance".

But Conroy is and ignoring the wider social, moral and political implications of the issue. A number of politicians, including Family First Steve Fielding and independent Nick Xenophon, have advocated blocking online gaming sites and general pornography sites. What next?

It is not hard to imagine a push to block sites that allegedly "support" terrorism. Take Hamas, the democratically elected party in Palestine and yet regarded as a terrorist group by much of the West. For many individuals around the world, myself included, Hamas is not a terrorist entity and should be engaged. But will over-zealous politicians make it illegal to view the organisation's websites?

This is a feasible scenario, as US Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman this year successfully pressured YouTube owners Google to remove videos from "Islamist terrorist organisations".

Many in the Australian gay community are equally concerned about the current proposals. The Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE), which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, has called on the Rudd government to guarantee "websites will not be accidentally filtered out purely because they contain the words poof, fag or dyke".

Technologically, the ability for internet service providers to successfully censor banned websites is arguably impossible. Three of the country's leading players, Telstra Media's Justin Milne, iiNet's Michael Malone and Internode's Simon Hackett, have all spoken on the record about the difficulties of implementing ISP-level filtering.

Hackett imagines a future where the government mandates a blacklist of IP addresses that by law an ISP is not permitted to serve to a customer. "Two problems with that", he argues. "One is collateral damage. What if that IP address is a virtual host with 2000 web sites on it and only one of them doesn't follow the government's morality? The other (problem) is, what if it's done by mistake? (What) if the IP address is just straight out wrong? Another obvious (problem) is that the internet is full of anonymous proxies. None of this stuff actually works."

Numerous programs such as TOR are used by users in repressive nations to communicate anonymously and without detection and are likely to be used by people in Australia.

Perhaps most worryingly, should we feel comfortable with the idea of privately owned ISPs being the gatekeeper of administering the law of permissible and blocked websites? Telstra's Milne rightly believes it should be the police implementing the rules of the land.

Furthermore, has the government even considered the massive financial burden on ISPs, especially the smaller ones, forced to play the role of Big Brother for Rudd's obsession with "protecting the children"? It seems clear that the will of small, unrepresentative Christian groups, including the Australian Family Association and the Australian Christian Lobby, are increasingly able to dictate social policy to Rudd ministers with little transparency as to their real role and influence.

The government completed a closed trial of web filtering products at a Telstra laboratory in Tasmania in June. The results were largely negative and found that most filters could not identify illegal or inappropriate content. It is not surprising that many industry insiders fear the government's moves are little more than populism dressed up as courageous social policy.

Colin Jacobs, chair of the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said recently that Rudd's "model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world."

This is certainly unnecessary rhetoric - I examine a host of authoritarian regimes in my book The Blogging Revolution, including Iran, and the Islamic Republic's censorship is far more extreme and life threatening than anything proposed by Rudd. But Jacobs is right to raise the alarm about the path Australia appears to be embracing.

Free speech is never absolute in any Western country but vigorous public debate should be the pre-cursor to any profound shift in freedom of the internet. History teaches us that governments have an unhealthy tendency to ban material deemed inappropriate for groups allegedly exposed. In this day and age, young children are seen as the most vulnerable. Cynicism is the only healthy response.

Antony Loewenstein is the author of The Blogging Revo-lution, published by Melbourne University Press.

The following report from MCV - Issue 407 dated 23 October 2008 should be a wake-up call to the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS communities in Australia.

For too long the complacency of members of these communities is evidence of how they have taken for granted the rights which they now have accorded to them in legislation in federal, state and territory jurisdictions. Activism is a thing of the past, "passe" to so many. "We don't do activism any more, we don't need to".

Not only is there still a long way to go to achieve equal rights, but it is very easy for those rights which we have achieved after years of struggle to be overturned at the stroke of a pen.

Here is the report:

 

Anti-gay threat emerges

Written by Peter Hackney

Wednesday, 22 October 2008

A coalition of organisations espousing the interests of ‘natural biological families’ has released a list of anti-gay policy proposals and represents a new threat to GBLTI communities, say gay activists. Gender Matters, a coalition of 17 groups and organisations, has released a list of demands on its website, www.gendermatters.org.au. They include: •    That marriage be “forever preserved as the voluntary exclusive union of one man and one woman”; •    That adoption be restricted to heterosexual couples; •    That IVF and other reproductive technologies are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals; •    A ban on same-sex civil unions and registers. The group wants homosexuality registered as a medical condition and public funds committed to “curing” homosexuality, which they term “gender disorientation pathology”. Last Thursday, it flexed its political clout with a submission to the Senate hearing on the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill. Australian Coalition for Equality spokesperson Rodney Croome said Gender Matters is couching its homophobia in a new way, in terms of gender differentiation. “Ordinarily, I would dismiss this kind of material as anti-gay hatred at the margins of the political debate,” Croome said. “But by framing their rhetoric in terms of gender differentiation, they will strike a chord with more people.” Australian Marriage Equality also expressed concern, but said it showed anti-gay groups were feeling threatened. Warwick Marsh, the Wollongong-based founder of Gender Matters, refused to answer questions when contacted by MCV.

GENDER MATTERS - HOMOPHOBIC MURDERERS

The 17 groups involved in this nefarious coalition must get as much public exposure as possible and they must be vigorously opposed by as many groups and individuals as possible.

Blog about them, put them on your web pages, expose their murderous intent at every opportunity, and ensure you work to see them closed down, if necessary by federal, state and territory attorneys- general under anti-discriminatory legislation. It is long past time that exemptions continue to be granted to these groups with their murderous statements which lead inevitably to bashings, assaults, bullyings and ultimately murder by the thugs influenced by their wicked teachings! Time for governments to act and act NOW!!!!!

It should be noted that this homophobic group has taken the name of a gay, lesbian, transgender, HIV-AIDS help group in the UK and used it with the deliberate intent of confusing people who may already be confused about sexuality and its problems and difficulties. This group is setting out to subvert any and every body who is supportive of these communities. Their religion-based mumbo jumbo must be exposed and stamped on before its viciousness takes hold of people who are already prejudiced before even understanding the basics of sexuality. 

At the height of the South African apartheid regime's censorship efforts, those enlightened political guardians of the morals of us degenerates censored Black Beauty, because, without ever having heard of the book, let alone read it! - they concluded the story would have to have been about a black woman who was a beauty, and therefore the book would have to be off limits to white people (read men!!) and must also be pornographic!!

Now we have a bunch of Australian politicians who are doing the same with photographic art and they are endeavouring to create a climate of fear and extreme censorship as they decide that Bill Henson's photographic art is pedophilia disguised as art - and what do we as lay people know about art???

Only politicians know and they must safeguard our morals - where have we heard all this cristian morality crap before??

DEECEE AND SAM USED TO EAT TOGETHER, AS CAN BE SEEN BY THE PICTURE ABOVE, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ENFORCING SEXUAL APARTHEID ON ITS GAY, LESBIAN AND TRANSGENDER CITIZENS, SO THEY NOW HAVE TO EAT IN "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" FACILITIES AT OTHER ENDS OF THE DINING ROOM AND KITCHEN.

The price of security

NOW that the terror trial is over we are going to be inundated with the alleged allegations of mistreatment of the terror defendants (The Age, 18/9).

Unfortunately we are fighting a war that was forced upon us. There is no precedent for such a war against people who wear no uniforms, hide among us, target civilians; against an enemy that has no specific grievance or outcome that can be ever satisfied. Even the outdated Geneva Convention does not allow for this new style of warfare against civilians.

So there will be innocent casualties whose human rights may be affected along the way. Fortunately the men who have been found not guilty will live to talk about it and may even be financially compensated for their inconvenience. However, the innocent men, woman and children killed by terrorist attacks worldwide will not.

Michael Burd, Toorak

Peter McGregor died in January 2008. The University of New South Wales was approached to make a posthumous apology for their behaviour in relation to the treatment of Peter at the Gilbert and Tobin forum (note the word forum) where he was not only ejected by the organisers, but had charges laid against him.

18 APRIL 2008:

No response yet from the University of New South Wales who regard this matter as closed, but Peter McGregor's friends and supporters don't quite see it that way. The disgusting behaviour of that university and its Gilbert and Tobin Law centre are as reprehensible as ever and have made no move to make amends to Peter's partner and everybody else involved.

17 MARCH 2008

Mannie De Saxe,

 

I am acknowledging receipt of your emails of 18 January and 11 March 2008. The University regards this matter as closed and will not respond to any further correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Victoria Finlay

Executive Officer to the Vice-Chancellor
Office of the Vice-Chancellor
Level 1, Chancellery
The University of New South Wales
UNSW Sydney
NSW 2052
Ph: 612 9385 3803 Fax: 612 9385 1949

josken@zipworld.com.au

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and advise when a response may be expected.

Mannie De Saxe

ATTENTION VICTORIA FINLAY

The fact that Peter McGregor died on 11 January 2008 does not mean that the matter between him and the University is now closed.

More than ever, it is necessary for the University to demonstrate that it is not a university in name only, but that the meaning of the word university is still understood to be that of an institution which upholds the traditions of a seat of learning.

The University, the Gilbert and Tobin Centre, the Law Faculty and the people involved in the events leading to the arrest of Peter McGregor need to make public apologies which are placed in the media in prominent positions so that the community is made aware of of the injustices of the actions taken to have Peter McGregor arrested and ignominiously thrown out of the University.

Until such time as this is done, the matter will not be laid to rest.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne.

Subject: Your email to the Vice-Chancellor

Dear Mr McGregor,

I am responding to your email to the Vice-Chancellor. I understand that the police prosecution has been withdrawn. The University regards the matter as closed and will not respond to any further correspondence regarding the matter.

Yours sincerely,

Victoria Finlay

Morris Iemma and some of the worst members of his government have departed, and New South Wales should be able to heave a collective sigh of relief.

Unfortunately not enough of them have gone, and there are still some of the old guard who are in the new cabinet of a new and unknown premier, ostensibly of the ALP "Left", if anyone can envisage such an animal. The trouble is already apparent by the choice of the deputy premier in the person of Carmel Tebbutt, who is still part of the old school, and has not been seen as one in the NSW government to inspire confidence.

Hopefully the Victorian premier might learn a little about the arrogance of the people who were in the NSW government and also those in the WA government, but the ALP never learns and goes from weakness to weakness in its endeavours to govern for big business but never for the people who elected them.

Both New South Wales and Victoria have governments which have not learnt that their states need public transport urgently, better health and education systems, and all the surpluses accumulated by all the governments around the country because of the goods and services taxes imposed on us by the Coalition and the non-lamented departed Democrats.

We deserve better, but most voters haven't woken up to the fact that these governments can be challenged by making sure that there are not just two main political parties in Australia.

The Greens may not be the best answer, but they would at least provide a challenge.

Roll on the Council elections in Victoria in November 2008 where the gerrymander has been ended for most councils and we may see the ALP no longer dominating much of local government politics.

Majority view no yardstick on rights

I HAVE no idea where Jennifer Tuke (Letters, 3/9) got her "80% of Australians" support access to abortion figure from. Not any study I've heard of. But really, even a higher figure would prompt me to say "So what?" I submit that abortion would not be wrong because of any opinion poll — it is objectively wrong because it ignores physical facts. You may as well draft legislation that denies gravity.

Every argument from the pro-choice, pro-death lobby, including the obfuscation from Dr Chris Bayly and colleagues ("Abortion law reform promises better health care, theage.com.au, 3/9) ignores the absolute reality of a unique and vulnerable human life growing inside the mother's womb — worthy of equal protection by the law. Size is irrelevant, as is development stage.

"Community standards" are too often extremely poor judges on matters of human rights, as has been shown throughout history. Why are we making the same mistake again?

Mark Rabich, Heathmont

Listen to the experts

JENNIFER Tuke is right (Letters, 3/9). Most Victorians do support the decriminalisation of abortion. The Abortion Law Reform Bill was drafted to reflect current clinical practice in Victoria. The Royal Women's Hospital, a great maternity hospital with long-established unplanned-pregnancy and abortion services, supports the bill without the proposed amendments (The Age, 3/9).

Every amendment to the bill that has been proposed limits women's right to exercise their choice; the amendments have been considered and rejected by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. I hope the members of Parliament are listening to both the medical profession, who provide high quality health services, and the community, who need them.

Stephanie Chen, Brighton East

Michelle Grattan pointed out in The Age newspaper on 5 September 2008 that the Alternative Liberal Party in Victoria had made the preference deal which saw Family First get the last senate seat in the 2004 federal election.

"As you make your bed so shall you lie in it", and how apt it is for the ALP government which is now unable to get its legislation through federal parliament because it has created the millstone round its neck in the form of Steve Fielding who, if anything, is certainly NOT family first when it comes to big business.

The ALP has been in government since November 2007, but the numbers in the senate for the new parliament only took effect from 1 July 2008, and the numbers are so tight that there is little room for negotiations with the minor parties for legislation which the Coalition has no intention of supporting.

The article below shows in detail how the ALP manoeuvred the preferences to eliminate the Greens - they preferred Family First and they got shot in the feet which will lead to future frustrations as they try to get legislation passed which Steve Fielding doesn't like!

The longer the ALP is in government in Canberra the more it is looking like the Coalition of the Howard era.

APOLOGIES TO PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY FOR MISQUOTING HIS FAMOUS WORDS:

HAIL TO THEE BLITHE SPIRIT,

BIRD THOU NEVER WERT!

After the following article appeared in the Sunday Age on 3 August 2008, a flurry of letters followed in the next few weeks, some from the usual suspects. These are the ones who have yet to learn the lessons of history, and it seems they are intent on learning them the hard way.

These people - zionist true believers - live in Australia where they decry the ever-growing voices of those who understand the need for change. Israel will ultimately have to become a secular state together with Palestine in a one-state solution to stop the 60-year war  which will otherwise continue indefinitely with death and horror in a continuous violent confrontation.

The letters follow the article, and appeared in the Sunday Age on 10 and 17 August 2008:

Straddling the divide

• Paul Daley
• August 3, 2008

A CHARACTERISTIC of Kevin Rudd's brief but eventful political life had been his remarkable, irrepressible capacity to promote his views - regardless of where they fitted in with party orthodoxy.

As a mere slip of a backbencher Rudd decided that foreign affairs was his forte; he was, after all, a former diplomat. And he was not going to be deterred from speaking out on almost any diplomatic issue by the fact Labor had a foreign affairs spokesman in Laurie Brereton.

Rudd used to drive Brereton and his staff mad. He'd pop up in all sorts of foreign, weird, dysfunctional places - not least the press gallery - to enunciate his views and critique both Labor and government diplomatic and defence policy.

Those of us who occasionally dealt with him back then admired his energy and chutzpah, while observing his tensions with Brereton with a sense of squeamish hilarity. By and large he was given pretty short shrift (there's a lesson in that for sure!) until Simon Crean actually awarded him the shadow foreign affairs job after Labor's 2001 election loss.

Rudd continued to work the press gallery tirelessly.

On one occasion, in July 2004, Rudd was on the phone constantly and walking in and out of the various bureaus incessantly. He was in a complete lather and the issue was Israel.

That was when Australia was one of just six countries to vote against a United Nations resolution demanding Israel dismantle its notorious security barrier - the wall around the West Bank that, while making life a misery for Palestinians, has done much to thwart suicide bombings.

The UN held the non-binding vote after the International Court of Justice ruled a section of the structure had been built on Palestinian land.

The five other "no" votes came from Israel, America, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau - 150 other countries voted "yes".

Rudd was telling anyone who'd listen that Australia's position was shameful. The government, aware of this, did some rear-guard briefing of its own, telling journalists that not only could Labor not be trusted to manage the precious bi-lateral relationship with America, but it would also mishandle Australia's "special friendship" with Israel.

Certainly Australian and Israeli Jews regarded John Howard as a great friend. When I visited Israel with Alexander Downer about this time last year, the foreign minister was feted like a rock star. Even Downer seemed to blush at the incredible platitudes awarded to him during dinner at Jerusalem's King David Hotel. Back then some Israeli officials and some prominent Australian friends of Israel viewed the prospect of a Rudd Government with measured caution.

A few months ago, when I was back in Israel, one of Tony Blair's advisers approached me. Blair, the former British prime minister, is now a special envoy to the Middle East on behalf of the so-called quartet of the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union. "Did you know," the adviser asked me, "that your government has increased aid to the Palestinian Authority?" This was seen as a big deal by the quartet - something John Howard would not have done and a sign, perhaps, of a different approach by Kevin Rudd on Israel.

A week before Christmas the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, Bob McMullan, announced Australia had indeed doubled its 2008 aid package to the Palestinian Territories to $45 million.

A senior Australian diplomatic source told me the aid increase "succinctly reflected a subtle repositioning and a new approach" in the Middle East.

Earlier this year Downer's replacement, Stephen Smith, gave an interview in Washington in which he said Australia was committed to an "even-handed" approach on Middle East policy.

Smith told Tony Walker, of The Australian Financial Review, that Labor would adhere to a longstanding policy acknowledging Israel's right to exist and the rights of a Palestinian nation state.

"That's an even-handed approach which Labor has had as its policy for a long period of time. It's a two-nation solution. That's even-handed," Smith said.

Walker, a veteran Middle East watcher, observed that that position "contrasts with the previous government, which tilted Australia's Middle East policy towards Israel and made little pretence of adhering to an 'even-handed' approach".

Perhaps he was right. On February 8, Michael Burd, in a letter to the Australian Jewish News, wrote: "It wasn't so long ago Jewish Labor supporters were arguing there was no difference between Liberal and Labor policy towards Israel, and Jews who attended private dinners with Kevin Rudd … were led to believe Labor would continue to support Israel.

"This letter writer will be watching for the next Arab/Muslim-backed UN anti-Israel resolution to see if Rudd stands by his commitment to the Jewish community."

Around this time, Rudd seemed to allay some fears when he introduced a motion into Federal Parliament honouring the state of Israel, which turned 60 this year. One of his MPs, Julia Irwin - a long-time critic of Israel's conduct - boycotted the motion.

Australia, meanwhile, is watching Israel closely as its prime minister, Ehud Olmert, prepares to stand down amid myriad corruption allegations. Despite his domestic problems, Olmert has done much to advance the peace process.

Australia also watches carefully as Middle East tensions rise over Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons capable of striking at the heart of the Jewish state. Senior figures in the Rudd Government will not, based on intelligence briefings, privately rule out a pre-emptive, unilateral strike against Iran by Israel.

There is no doubt that, while the Australia-Israel relationship remains close, there is significant new uncertainty about it.

Rudd, who has yet to visit Israel as prime minister, does little by accident.

Paul Daley is The Sunday Age's national political columnist.

Who's extreme?

Larry Stillman (Letters, 10/8), a member of both the left-wing socialist organisation Australian Jewish Democratic Society and Independent Australian Jewish Voices — groups considered extremist by the Jewish community — claims my views on Israel are extreme.

I support a two-state solution with issues of shared status to be part of any final negotiations.

The only issues I would imagine Stillman may consider extreme are that I would expect reciprocity from the Palestinians before any facts agreed by both sides change.

I would also expect acceptance from all Palestinian factions of a Jewish state as their neighbour, just as Israel would have to accept an Islamic state of Palestine; zero tolerance on all forms of violence against Israeli civilians and, unless provoked, against the Israel Defence Forces; and, finally, zero tolerance of incitement of hatred towards Jews and Israelis in Palestinian Schools, universities and media.

MICHAEL BURD, Toorak

THE ITEM BELOW WAS AN ADVERTISEMENT PLACED IN THE SUNDAY AGE ON 3 AUGUST 2008  BY THE ORGANISATIONS LISTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ITEM.

JEFF KENNETT WAS A POLITICIAN WHOSE ACTIONS PRODUCED DISASTER ALL ROUND VICTORIA, NOT LEAST IN THE COUNCIL AREA OF DAREBIN, WHERE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLOSURE OF THE PANCH HOSPITAL IN BELL STREET, PRESTON.

HE IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR DEPRESSION BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS AND, NOT LEAST, BECAUSE OF HIS HOMOPHOBIA.

PEOPLE LIKE KENNETT MUST BE STOPPED BECAUSE THE DAMAGE THEY DO TO PEOPLE IS INCALCULABLE AND DEVASTATING TO THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES.

KENNETT ALWAYS SPOKE FIRST AND THOUGHT AFTERWARDS, BUT IN THIS CASE HE OUGHT TO BE TAKEN BEFORE AN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL AND STOPPED FROM SPITTING THE VENOM WHICH COMES FROM HIS MOUTH.

HOMOPHOBIA IN AUSTRALIA IS AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS WITH BASHINGS, MURDERS AND VILIFICATIONS OCCURRING ALL THE TIME.

POLITICIANS MUST STOP PLAYING GAMES WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES AND UNDERSTAND THE DAMAGE THEY DO. KENNETT IS ONE OF THOSE WHO MUST BE SILENCED!

It is difficult not to be cynical about those zionist fanatics who still call Melbourne home, but tell everyone in Australia who will listen that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east and it must be supported so that it is not destroyed by the Palestinians and other enemies intent on seeing the end of the zionist state.

Many are of course prominent in the Australian zionist/Jewish communities and assume to act as spokespeople for all Jews and Israel supporters.

Names that come immediately to mind are Colin Rubenstein, Philip Mendes, Peter Cohen, Merv Morris, Michael Danby  and others who are so determined to assist that poor little country that they spend their time telling everyone what they need to do to ensure Israel's survival.

What they DON'T do is move to Israel to defend its illegal borders from Palestinian residents of their own territory who, unsurprisingly, do what they can to regain that which has been stolen from them by settlers and the apartheid wall (South Africa never had anything like THIS!!!!!) for the last 60 years!

And the war against the Palestinians in the land of Palestine is already 60 years old and will continue until such time as the Israelis learn that you can't keep on stealing other people's land and then imposing prison terms on them by locking them up in their rapidly-shrinking pressure cookers!! Pressure cookers evntually explode if they don't have safety valves!