One NSW North Coast sorry day story

The Northern Rivers Echo last Thursday.

"I was taken in 1960 from a mission in Moree. I was two years old so I don't remember it… but I was told a gun was held at mummy's head".

That's how 49-year-old Lismore woman Priscilla Wightman described the traumatic forced separation from her parents in the lead-up to next week's national apology by the federal government to members of Australia's stolen generation.

Priscilla – along with other local members of the stolen generation, their family and supporters – will travel to Canberra for the sorry ceremony at Parliament House next Wednesday.

A member of the Lismore Aboriginal Justice Group and Lismore People for Reconciliation, Priscilla did not mince words about what the day meant for her and others of the stolen generation."

Well duh, M'lud

Soon to retire Australian Chief Justice of the High Court, Murray Gleeson, predicts that attempts by governments to divide water rights among states, businesses and individuals would inevitably spill into the courts.

 

Speaking to The Sydney Morning Herald this week he said; "If someone asked me to predict - and said it was income tax 30 years ago, and it is immigration cases now - I would say in 30 years from now it will be water … When there is an important topic of public policy and the likelihood of government regulation, then lawyers are likely to get involved, too."

 

No doubt about it. Years of tertiary education, more years in legal practice, hundreds of hours on the Bench, and a judge comes out with a polished thought on something that has been bl**dy obvious to the hoi polloi on the NSW North Coast for yonks.

Ain't education and a decent income wunnerful?

NSW North Coast battening down the hatches today

There will be little boating or fishing on parts of the NSW North Coast this afternoon. The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) weather warning for today.

 

"PRIORITY
Coastal Waters Wind Warning
For NSW Waters North of Wooli and South of Ulladulla.
Issued at 4:10 am EDT on Tuesday 12 February 2008

Synoptic situation
High over the Tasman Sea directing an easterly flow tending northerly in the south. A cold front expected to affect the far southern coast overnight Tuesday before continuing further north on Wednesday, whilst a low pressure system expected to develop off the coast near the Queensland/NSW border Tuesday afternoon or evening.

Gale Warning
For the Far North Coast, from Point Danger to Cape Byron

E/SE wind 20/30 knots increasing to 30/40 knots in the afternoon or evening. Sea 2 to 3 metres rising 3 to 4 metres. Swell of 1.5 to 2 metres increasing to about 3 metres later.

Strong Wind Warning
For the Far North Coast, from Cape Byron to Wooli

E/SE wind increasing to 20/30 knots in the afternoon. Sea rising to 2 to 3 metres, on a swell of 1.5 to 2 metres.-----

Please be aware
Wind gusts can be a further 40 percent stronger than the averages given here, and maximum waves may be up to twice the height."

 

Peter Singer argues that whaling and lethal whale research are unethical

The Japan Times ran this opinion piece under the rather inapt title Hypocrisy weakens West's whaling protests.

 

Peter Singer, an Australian professor of bioethics at Princeton University, wrote this:

"I did not argue that whaling should stop because whales are endangered. I knew that many expert ecologists and marine biologists would make that claim. Instead, I argued that whales are social mammals with big brains, capable of enjoying life and of feeling pain — and not only physical pain, but very likely also distress at the loss of one of their group.

Whales cannot be humanely killed — they are too large, and even with an explosive harpoon, it is difficult to hit the whale in the right spot. Moreover, whalers do not want to use a large amount of explosive, because that would blow the whale to pieces, while the whole point is to recover valuable oil or flesh. So harpooned whales typically die slowly and painfully.

Causing suffering to innocent beings without an extremely weighty reason for doing so is wrong. If there were some life-or-death need that humans could meet only by killing whales, perhaps the ethical case against it could be countered. But there is no essential human need that requires us to kill whales. Everything we get from whales can be obtained without cruelty elsewhere. Thus, whaling is unethical."

Time for Rudd Government to look Howard's NT Intervention squarely in the face

It is no use pussy footing around the issue. John Howard's NT Intervention was a thinly disguised attempt to quash new native title applications on affected land, a grab at indigenous community assets and a dress rehearsal for controlling the income of all Australian welfare recipients.

It is based on 1940s-style racism and bigotry.

In The Age today a call went out for the Rudd Government to overhaul the legislation that it cravenly voted for when in Opposition.

 

"A GOVERNMENT human rights watchdog has called for an overhaul of the landmark emergency intervention legislation to remove "punitive and racist" provisions that discriminate against Aborigines.

A report prepared by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has found that the "racially based legislation" contravenes a number of international human rights conventions and the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act.

The Age believes the report outlines a 10-point program on how to unscramble the legislation and endorses moves by the Government to reimpose permits, reinstate the work-for-the-dole scheme, known as CDEP, and provide a strategy to close the life expectancy gap for indigenous people.----

"Tom Calma, the commissioner responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice issues and author of the report, said yesterday: "The whole intervention is questionable, especially the racist way it was imposed on Aboriginal people."

While declining to discuss the contents of the report, he said there was a problem with the legislation because "it contravened most of the international conventions Australia had signed up to … There will be a lot of detail and arguments identifying what changes need to be made."

It's the little things that finally drive you mad

Nearly chocked on my morning cuppa yesterday - I kid you not.

ABC News Radio broadcast Liberals leader Brendan Nelson saying that he was the most important person Kevin Rudd should negotiate with about wording of the apology to the Stolen Generation.

Not the Stolen Generation, not indigenous leaders or their communities - just Brendan should be the main focus.

The mind boggles at how little most Coalition MPs understand.

Little Brennie's statement was so 'out there' that it deserves a link. 

 

Almost knocked over a beer at dinner that night - my oath I did.

ABC TV showed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd beaming from the box as he assured us all that privatising the NSW power industry was good for Australia.

In one fell swoop betraying Labor Party principles and NSW voters.

Rudders support was such a 'rat out' that it also deserves a link for posterity.

 

Of course it's always the minor things which drive you screaming from the room - too right.

All night with that new, bright blue solid ABC1 logo, winking and blinking and intruding on every televised scene. Aaaggh!

Wondering exactly where Japan might be made answerable for its Southern Ocean whale kill? Here's one venue Australia may be considering

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea online information.

 

"The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was opened for signature at Montego Bay, Jamaica, on 10 December 1982. It entered into force 12 years later, on 16 November 1994. A subsequent Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention was adopted on 28 July 1994 and entered into force on 28 July 1996. This Agreement and Part XI of the Convention are to be interpreted and applied together as a single instrument.

The origins of the Convention date from 1 November 1967 when Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations and called for "an effective international regime over the seabed and the ocean floor beyond a clearly defined national jurisdiction". This led to the convening, in 1973, of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which after nine years of negotiations adopted the Convention.

The Convention establishes a comprehensive legal framework to regulate all ocean space, its uses and resources. It contains, among other things, provisions relating to the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone and the high seas. It also provides for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, for marine scientific research and for the development and transfer of marine technology. One of the most important parts of the Convention concerns the exploration for and exploitation of the resources of the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area). The Convention declares the Area and its resources to be "the common heritage of mankind". The International Seabed Authority, established by the Convention, administers the resources of the Area.

Part XV of the Convention lays down a comprehensive system for the settlement of disputes that might arise with respect to the interpretation and application of the Convention. It requires States Parties to settle their disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention by peaceful means indicated in the Charter of the United Nations. However, if parties to a dispute fail to reach a settlement by peaceful means of their own choice, they are obliged to resort to the compulsory dispute settlement procedures entailing binding decisions, subject to limitations and exceptions contained in the Convention.

The mechanism established by the Convention provides for four alternative means for the settlement of disputes: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the Convention, and a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII to the Convention.

A State Party is free to choose one or more of these means by a written declaration to be made under article 287 of the Convention and deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations (declarations made by States Parties under article 287).

If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same settlement procedure, the dispute may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree."

 

Both New Zealand and Australia have previously used the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to stop Japan's overfishing of Southern Bluefin Tuna.