Social Democracy Now

May 14, 2006 at 08:42 o\clock

Sequel to previous entry









ABOVE: John Howard with some of his Jewish admirers. Photos like those above may appear on Jewish websites, but they never appear in mainstream newspapers like the Herald, the Daily Telegraph and the Australian. It's not hard to see that such images are not considered appropriate for diffusion among Gentile populations, where they may not be regarded as sympathetically as they undoubtedly are among Jewish audiences.

JOHN HOWARD QUOTE: 'The personal affection I have for the state of Israel, the personal regard I have for the Jewish people of the world, will never be diminished. It is something I hold dearly, something I value as part of my being and as part of what I have tried to do with my life.' (SOURCE)

QUESTION: How does an Australian Methodist boy end up regarding 'the Jewish people of the world' as part of his 'being'? Wouldn't the most logical explanation be that Howard is actually a crypto-Jew?

FURTHER READING: Brian McKinlay, "John Howard's Grand Tour: The 'Arse Licker' Goes to Washington" here and "Zionists Stand Over Australian Politicians" here.

May 14, 2006 at 08:22 o\clock

What did Howard do to deserve B'nai B'rith honour? And why isn't the <I>Sydney Morning Herald</I> telling its readers about it?

John Howard is off to Washington, reported the Sydney Morning Herald last night. According to this story, the purpose of the trip was to further cultivate relations with U.S. President George Bush:

'Mr Howard and Mr Bush will discuss the future of troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's nuclear program, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the growing importance of China and India in formal talks on Tuesday. The two leaders will meet informally on Sunday afternoon when Mr Howard will plant two saplings from the White House garden in the grounds of the Australian embassy. The trees are a gift from the president to mark the relationship between the two countries. President Bush will also host a black-tie dinner in the White House on Tuesday night - only the seventh such honour he has accorded to a visiting leader during his two terms of office.'

What the Herald didn't tell Australian readers, but what the Australian Jewish News had no problem informing Australian Jews, is that between his Sunday and Tuesday appointments with Bush, Howard will receive 'the prestigious B'nai B'rith international Presidential Gold Medal for his "outstanding" support of Israel and the Jewish people at a ceremony' in Washington. (NOTE)

I can't imagine why the Herald is ignoring this aspect of Howard's Washington trip. It's hardly a secret, given that it's already been reported by an Australian Jewish newspaper. Actually, I'm lying - I can imagine it only too well. Thanks to selective media reporting, it would come as a great surprise to most Australians to discover that Prime Minister Howard has performed 'outstanding' services to Israel. Presumably, what the Herald doesn't want the Australian public to realize - but what Australian Jews are allowed to know - is who Howard, along with Bush and Blair and the other most fervent supporters of the Iraq war - is really working for. As it's increasingly obvious that the Iraq war was essentially a war to advance Israeli interests, it's also increasingly obvious that Howard's support for that war - over and against the wishes of the Australian people - issues from Howard's Zionism. (Cynics would probably point out here that Jewish donors give something like twenty million dollars to Howard's Liberal party each year.) Howard has been notoriously inflexible on Iraq, despite the overwhelming opposition to the war from ordinary Australians, precisely because he's not working for Australians - he's working for Israel.

Although Howard would probably deserve a highly 'prestigious' B'nai B'rith honour solely on account of his support for the neocons' diabolical Middle East misadventures, he has performed numerous other favours for the Jews over the years. Let's attempt a partial list:

(1) Forced the withdrawal of an invitation to Yasser Arafat from the then-deputy prime minister, Tim Fisher, to visit Australia in 1997.

(2) Put in place an extradition treaty with Latvia in order to enable the extradition of alleged war criminal Konrad Kalejs, specifically as called upon to do by Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) Director Colin Rubenstein in 2000. (SOURCE)

(3) Has made Australia join the U.S. in the United Nations as the sole source of opposition to measures that would hold Israel accountable for its persistent mistreatment of the Palestinians. As AIJAC Director Rubenstein put it in 2002, 'at the United Nations under John Howard's leadership, the Australian government has abstained from or opposed morally skewered [sic] and sometimes viciously [sic] anti-Israel resolutions. It's assisted Israel's admission into the WEOG Group at the United Nations. Australia was right to stay away from the conference of high-contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention in December that convened solely for the purpose of hectoring [sic] and delegitimizing [sic] Israel. Above all, at the Durban Conference on Racism, which just turned into a display of the very evils they were supposed to combat, Australia took a vitally important role in moderating [sic] the proceedings.' (SOURCE)

(4) Aligned Australia with the neocons' insane and destructive war on Islam.

(5) Has manipulated Australia in the direction of a society in which public criticism of Israel is becoming virtually unthinkable. NB: At the time of writing, an Australian MP, Julia Irwin, is under attack for having pointed out that there is effectively in force a 'code of silence' forbidding parliamentary discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (SOURCE)

In addition, there have also been allegations that the Port Arthur massacre was actually an Israeli operation: Joe Vialls, "Special Forces at Port Arthur" here and Judicial Biz, "Port Arthur Massacre" here. Although I can't claim to have seen any evidence implicating Israel so far (other than the fact that several key members of the Australian anti-gun lobby are apparently Jewish), the massacre, which took place only about nine weeks after he took power, could well have been a 'baptism of fire' by which Howard proved his willingness to sacrifice Australian lives for Israeli interests. If Port Arthur was a Zionist black op, it is not hard to see that Howard would have earned the eternal gratitude of Israel for having covered up the conspiracy so well and for so long.

But whether the state of Israel is also indebted to Howard for the Port Arthur coverup, the fact remains that there is a generous amount of information already in the public domain on the 'outstanding' services Howard has been performing on for Israel for ten years. But if Jews are allowed to know about it, doesn't the Australian mainstream media have an obligation to tell the Australian public about it? Why is the only way an Australian citizen can ever find out what his or her country's leader is really up to is by dipping occasionally into the Jewish press, something that most of us Gentiles would rarely think of doing? Is it because they are afraid people might asking questions like the following: if Howard can do so much for the Jews, how come he doesn't seem to be able to find it in him to do something for Australians?

NOTE: I can find no information concerning previous recipients of the B'nai B'rith international Presidential Gold Medal - which tends to make me wonder how 'prestigious' it can be. In any case, it is hardly Howard's first such honour - he has a seemingly endless list of Jewish plaudits. In 2000, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from Bar-Ilan University. (Previous recipients included Margeret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev.) (SOURCE) In 2002, he was bestowed 'the American Jewish Committee's Award for distinguished public service for his record and that of his government, for his steadfast alliance with the United States, its strong support for and close bilateral ties with the state of Israel and his open and warm relations with Australia's Jewish community.' (SOURCE) In 2004, the American Jewish Committee awarded him the American [sic] Liberties Medallion. 'Previous recipients of the award include Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Vaclav Havel, Natan Sharansky, and Elie Wiesel.' (SOURCE) And in 2005 [?], he was awarded the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce's highest honour, the Leon Liberman Award for trade. (SOURCE) The B'nai B'rith medal looks like merely the capstone to a period in which Jewish organisations have thanked Howard at every opportunity for his ten years of devoted service to Israel.

May 2, 2006 at 08:49 o\clock

'Forensic Investigators': a case study of the Port Arthur coverup

Over the last few years, one of the more educational programmes that has appeared on Australian commercial television is Forensic Investigators. Despite being into its third series, the programme, whose executive producer is Fiona Baker, still has not touched Port Arthur. Given that this is the largest murder case in Australian history, and given the official claims that it is an open and shut case in which the perpetrator has correctly been identified and sentenced to life imprisonment, I decided to get in touch with Baker to find out what her reasons may be for ignoring what would seem to be a showcase study in Australian criminal forensics.

BELOW: Fiona Baker of Forensic Investigators:



I rang Southern Star, FI's production house, and learned that no programme had been made about Port Arthur because there were 'all kinds of legal issues' - and, anyway, it was left up to the discretion of the producer what programmes get made. Since I wanted to clarify the question of the 'legal issues,' I asked to speak to the programme's producer or to be given his or her email address. It seems that the FI office was determined to obstruct my attempt to contact Baker by fobbing me off with an email address for a certain L. Killesteyn, whose actual connection to the programme I could never discover. (Killesteyn being a rather uncommon surname, L. Killesteyn might possibly be related to Ed Killesteyn, Australia's Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. If so, L. Killesteyn's relationship to FI could plausibly involve supervising the programme from the government end.)

In any case, it wasn't hard to deduce Baker's email address from Killesteyn's (lkillesteyn@sstar.com.au), and I soon confirmed Baker's email to be fbaker@sstar.com.au. I then sent Baker the following email message:

"I recently rang Southern Star's production office to request a copy of the show I erroneously assumed you would have done on Port Arthur.

After I learned that no show on Port Arthur had been made, I asked whether there were any plans to make one, and I was assured that there weren't because there were 'all kinds of legal issues.'

The office then obstructed me in my efforts to contact you by refusing to give me your email or contact number. I must admit to being shocked to discover that you're so inaccessible. It would seem that you're treated like royalty there. Anyway, now to the matter I wish to talk to you about.

What I want to find out is 1) why there are no plans to produce a programme on the biggest murder case in Australian history and 2) what sorts of 'legal issues' might inhibit you from touching the story.

Recently, in an interview with the Bulletin, former Tasmanian premier Tony Rundle, stated that it was a pity there had been no trial in this case because if there had been a trial, the evidence would have been released to the public and that would have saved the nation all the 'conspiracy theories' that have proliferated over the years.

Since of course it's never too late to release the evidence - and I think the public has a right to know what the evidence actually is - wouldn't your programme make an excellent vehicle for making this evidence available to the public at long last?"

I received a response shortly afterwards:

"Thanks for your email. I understand that you called when I was out of the office.

I agree Port Arthur is a story of great interest, and if covered by the media needs to be handled with great care as there are many survivors and relatives of victims who need to be considered. [NB: This is the 'wall of bogus hypersensitivity' I referred to in my previous post, "The Port Arthur massacre: the media coverup continues."]

My staff member was correct in the fact that we will not be including the case in our third series. The main reason for this is the format of our show. Forensic Investigators looks at the investigation of crimes that need to be solved. That is, where an offender has not been identified. The show looks at how evidence is gathered to find and then link an offender to the crime.

My other concern in covering this story later in the year for our program is that it would yet again re-open all the past for the survivors and relatives who have had to relive it once more in these past weeks with the anniversary coverage.

I thank you for your interest in our program and your thoughts about including Port Arthur in it.

I hope you will understand the reasons for its omission."

I wrote back thus:

"I found this an intriguing response. Are you saying that no evidence was gathered to link Bryant to the crime? Presumably Tasmania Police did so, or else they wouldn't have identified him as the perpetrator! What's more, they did so in record time, which surely makes the forensic investigation of the case one of the swiftest and most efficient on record. Wouldn't that make a perfect subject for a programme?

As for the idea that the idea that 'it would yet again re-open all the past for the survivors and relatives who have had to relive it once more in these past weeks with the anniversary coverage.' It sounds to me here as if you are presuming to speak for the victims and relatives here. I find it striking how often people in the media tell us what the victims and the relatives want. How do you know they wouldn't like to know how Bryant was identified as the perpetrator? [NB: I know for a fact that some of the victims and relatives are not convinced of Bryant's guilt and would very much like to know how he was ID'd as the perp.]

In any case, even if you did make a programme about the case it wouldn't be on television for a good while yet, presumably."

I am still awaiting a reply from Baker. Of course, I do not actually expect to receive one. As any one who has actually studied the case knows, the problem is that there are no forensics linking Bryant to the massacre. Forensic Investigators can't possibly touch Port Arthur because there is nothing for it to 'investigate.'