Category: Article

“Hitler Boy Salomon”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Europa

Europa_EuropaEuropa Europa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Europa Europa
Europa europa us release poster.jpg

US release poster
Directed by Agnieszka Holland
Produced by Artur Brauner
Margaret Ménégoz
Written by Agnieszka Holland
Paul Hengge
Starring Marco Hofschneider
Julie Delpy
Hanns Zischler
Distributed by Orion (US)
Release dates
 November 14, 1990 (France)[1]
Running time
 112 minutes
Country Germany[1][2][3]
France
Poland
Language German
Russian
Polish
Hebrew
Yiddish
Box office $5,575,738 (domestic) [4]

Europa Europa is a 1990 film directed by Agnieszka Holland. Its original German title isHitlerjunge Salomon, i.e. “Hitler Boy Salomon”. It is based on the 1989 autobiography ofSolomon Perel, a German Jewish boy who escaped the Holocaust by masquerading not just as a non-Jew, but as an elite “Aryan” German. The film stars Marco Hofschneider as Perel; Perel appears briefly as himself in the finale. The film is an international co-production between CCC Film and companies in France and Poland.

The film should not be confused with the 1991 Lars von Trier film Europa, which was initially released as Zentropa in the United States to avoid such a confusion.

Plot[edit]

Nazi Germany[edit]

Solek (a nickname for Solomon, also called “Solly”) and his family live in Nazi Germany. On the eve of Solek’s bar mitzvah, Kristallnacht occurs. He escapes, naked, then hiding in a barrel. At night, he calls his acquaintance to bring him clothes from his house. She refuses, but throws him a leather jacket with a swastika band on its arm. He comes back home. His family is together at home, but his sister is killed by Nazis. The father, who was born in Łódź, Poland, decides to go back there.

Poland[edit]

The Perel family (Solek, his parents, and his two brothers, David and Isaak) decides to move to Łódź, central Poland, where they believed they will be safe. Solly causes criminal damage and the police are called. Living in Łódź, Solly meets Kasia, a cashier working in a cinema. Thanks to her Solly can go to the cinema without paying for the ticket. Later, they establish a romantic relationship. However, less than a year later, World War II begins with Germany invading western Polish borders. Solly is happy that the criminal case will be forgotten, since the police will have more important issues to solve. Solek’s family decides he and his brother should leave for the European East. Solek meets hysterically upset Kasia, but his brother separates them. Isaak and Solek flee, towards the eastern border of Poland, which soon has been invaded by the Soviet Union. (In an ironic scene, as Solek and other Jewish refugees cross a river in a small boat, while a boat carrying Polish refugees fleeing the Soviets passes in the opposite direction, Solomon explains in an internal monologue that the Jews, fearing Nazi persecution, fled toward the Soviets, while the Poles, who feared the Soviets more, fled toward the Germans.) The brothers are separated, and Solek is placed in a Soviet orphanage inGrodno with other Polish refugee children.

Soviet Union[edit]

Solek lives in the orphanage for two years, where he joins the Komsomol and receives Communist education. Being a teenager, he has a romantic interest in Inna, a young and attractive instructor who defends him when the authorities at school discover that his class origin is middle-class. He even climbs outside the building to watch her in her bedroom. One scene features a Russian version of the German Communist song Dem Morgenrot Entgegen (“Towards The Dawn”) before mail call, where Solek receives a letter from his parents who have been re-settled in a ghetto.

Nazi-occupied Soviet Union[edit]

Then, with the crash of a bomb, Germany invades the Soviet Union. The orphanage is evacuated, but Solek is left behind, to be found by German soldiers. Solek gets rid of his identity papers, and tells the Germans he is “Josef Peters”, a Volksdeutscher (ethnic German) from a Baltic German family in Latvia. Although he does not respond to his made up name, the soldiers deduce that he was in the orphanage because his parents were killed by the Soviets, and promise him vengeance. When the unit captures Yakov Dzhugashvili, the son ofJoseph Stalin, with Solly’s help translating Russian, they declare “Jupp” to be their “good-luck charm”, and adopt him as an auxiliary. Thanks to his fluent German and Russian, he becomes their cultural guide and interpreter. He accompanies the unit for several weeks, and sees all the horrors of war, including murdered civilians, as the Germans seek to crush Soviet resistance.

Nonetheless, Solek is still in danger. He cannot let anyone see him bathing, because his circumcised penis would expose “Jupp” as a Jew. Robert, one of the soldiers, is a homosexual, and sneaks in on “Jupp” when he finally manages a private bath. Solek rejects Robert’s advances. However, knowing that both of them have secrets the Nazis would kill them for, they become close friends.

Then a bizarre combat incident occurs. Robert is killed and Solek, left alone, tries to get to the Soviet lines. As he crosses a bridge, the unit charges across behind him, and the Soviet troops there surrender. “Jupp” is hailed as a hero.

The company commander decides that “such a fine young German” should be properly educated. He is childless himself, so he tells “Jupp” that he will adopt him and that “Jupp” will be sent to the elite Hitler Youth Academy in Berlin where he is to receive Nazi education. (This is much to Solek’s consternation, but of course he cannot refuse.)

He is escorted for much of the trip by Rosemarie, a middle-aged female Nazi official. Rosemarie thinks “Jupp” resembles Hitler, and observes that he even has the same birthday. On the train, she makes “Jupp” have sex with her, crying out “Mein Führer!” as they have intercourse.

Nazi Germany[edit]

At the school, “Peters” is introduced to the other boys as a heroic combat veteran. The problem of concealing his circumcision continues, and Solek uses string and rubber bands in various painful ways to simulate a foreskin. He evades a medical examination by pretending to have a violent toothache, and then must endure having the dentist pull it without anesthetic.

Girls from the Bund Deutscher Mädel (League of German Girls, the female equivalent of the Hitler Youth) serve meals at the Academy. Leni, one of these girls, becomes infatuated with “Jupp”, but he dares not take advantage – Leni is a fervent Nazi and even speaks of wanting to kill Jews. Leni strongly hints that she would happily bear “Jupp”‘s child, but after a particularly venomous anti-Jewish remark he refuses any intimacy. She calls him a Schlappschwanz (“limp-dick”), and they break off.

A less serious threat is the visit to the Academy of a Nazi “expert” in “racial science“, who claims particular skill in detecting Jews. The Nazi selects “Jupp” as his subject for a demonstration, and carefully measures his head and face. He then calculates “Jupp”‘santhropometric indexes, and pronounces him mixed but “pure Aryan stock”, to Jupp’s relieved surprise. Soon after, while working in a factory for the war effort, Jupp and his classmates learn that the Sixth Army has fallen at Stalingrad.

After several months without seeing Leni, Solek visits Leni’s mother, who does not sympathize with the Nazis. She tells him Leni is pregnant and intends to “give the child to the Führer”, in the Lebensborn program. Solek realizes that the child’s father is his best friend and classmate Gerd. When Leni’s mother presses Josef on his identity, he breaks down and confesses that he is a Jew; she tells him that she suspected that and promises not to betray him. Leni never finds out.

Solek’s pretense is nearly exposed when the Gestapo investigates “Jupp”‘s supposed parentage. He is summoned to Gestapo offices, but cannot show a Certificate of Racial Purity, which he claims is in Grodno. The Gestapo official says he will send for it, and then rants about how the war will be won by Hitler’s Wunderwaffen (“wonder weapons”). As Solek leaves, the building is destroyed by Allied bombs. Solek’s relief is tempered by Gerd’s death in the bombing.

Soviet-occupied Nazi Germany[edit]

As Soviet troops close in on Berlin, the Hitler Youth at the school are sent to the front. There Solek manages to surrender. His captors refuse to believe that he is a Jew. “If you’re a Jew, why don’t you look like this? Look!” demands a Soviet officer as he shows Solek photos of murdered Jews from the death camps they had liberated. Jupp had not been aware this was going on. They are about to have Solek shot by an elderly Communist political prisoner (wearing a red triangle on his camp uniform) when Solek’s brother Isaak, just released from a concentration camp, identifies Solek and saves him. Before leaving the camp, Isaak tells Solek to never reveal his story to anyone, saying it would never be believed. He is released shortly thereafter and emigrates to the British Mandate of Palestine, the future state of Israel, where he embraces his Jewish heritage. The films ends with the real Solomon Perel, as an old man, singing a Jewish folk song taken from the Book of Psalms (“Hineh mah tov,” Psalm 133:1).

Box office[edit]

The film was released on June 28, 1991 and grossed $31,433 in its opening weekend in two theaters. Its final grossing in the US was $5,575,738.[4]

Awards[edit]

The film won the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film and was nominated for the Academy Award: Best Writing Adapted Screenplay, but lost the award to The Silence of the Lambs. It had been expected to be nominated for Best Foreign Language Film but Germany did not submit it.

Cast[edit]

Actor Role
Marco Hofschneider Solomon Perel
Julie Delpy Leni
René Hofschneider Isaak
Piotr Kozlowski David
André Wilms Soldier Robert Kellerman
Ashley Wanninger Gerd
Halina Łabonarska Leni’s Mother
Klaus Abramowsky Solomon’s Dad
Michèle Gleizer Solomon’s Mother
Marta Sandrowicz Bertha
Nathalie Schmidt Basia
Delphine Forest Inna
Martin Maria Blau Ulmayer
Andrzej Mastalerz Zenek
Solomon Perel Himself

Capital in the Twenty-First Century

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/02/thomas-piketty-capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-french-economist

 

Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that rare phenomenon, an economics tome that flies off the shelves.

” . . . . .

The gist of Piketty’s book is simple. Returns to capital are rising faster than economies are growing. The wealthy are getting wealthier while everybody else is struggling. Inequality will widen to the point where it becomes unsustainable – both politically and economically – unless action is taken to redistribute income and wealth. Piketty favours a graduated wealth tax and 80% income tax for those on the highest salaries.

Lord (Adair) Turner, the former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, says Capital is “a remarkable piece of work”. Turner, who has name-checked Piketty in his recent lectures, added: “He is saying that we have a set of tendencies at work to which the offset has to be a degree of redistribution. I completely agree with him.”

Krugman, writing in the New York Review of Books, says Piketty’s work will “change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics”.

. . . . “

Progress and Poverty

Why was Henry George not successful?

Here you may find some interesting answers from a book written by
Mason Gaffney

“Neoclassical economics is the idiom of most economic discourse
today. It is the paradigm that bends the twigs of young minds. Then
it confines the florescence of older ones, like chicken-wire shaping
a topiary. It took form about a hundred years ago, when Henry George and
his reform proposals were a clear and present political danger and challenge
to the landed and intellectual establishments of the world. Few people
realize to what degree the founders ofNeo-classical economics changed the
discipline for the express purpose of deflecting George and frustrating
future students seeking to follow his arguments. The strategem was
semantic: to destroy the very words in which he expressed himself. Simon
Patten expounded it succinctly. “Nothing pleases a …single taxer better
than … to use the well-known economic theories … [therefore] economic
doctrine must be recast” (Patten, 1908: 219; Collier, 1979: 270).’
George believed economists were recasting the discipline to refute him.
He states so, as though in the third person, in his posthumously published
book, The Science ofPoliticalEconomy(George, 1898:200-209). George’s
self-importance was immodest, it is true. However, immodesty may be
objectivity, as many great talents from Frank Lloyd Wright to Muhammed
Ali and Frank Sinatra have displayed. George had good reasons, which we
are to demonstrate. George’s view may even strike some as paranoid. That
was this writer’s first impression, many years ago. I have changed my view,
however, after learning more about the period, the literature, and later
events.

To read on please follow this link:

http://masongaffney.org/publications/K1Neo-classical_Stratagem.CV.pdf

 

I am very interested in finding out why there is so much resistance to applying the ideas that Henry George promoted in the 19th century.

The above publication seems to be giving some interesting links.

 

 

 

On the 10th of April 2014 I wrote the following in my blog:

 

You may have noticed that I googled a lot these past few days. It all had to do with where past civilisations and our civilisation are headed for.

The unequal distribution of wealth and privilege is examined. Progress as well as poverty, how can this be? THIS IS THE QUESTION.

 

In 1979 Agnes George de Mille, the granddaughter of Henry George, published this:

w.progwwress.org/tpr/who-was-henry-george/

 

I found the above when I googled ‘Henry George‘. There are many more links to Henry George in Google!

 

2 Responses to “UTA’S DIARY”

  1. berlioz1935April 10, 2014 at 9:41 am Edit #

    Research and mathematical modelling has shown conclusively that unequal distribution of wealth has led to the downfall of civilisations. But the Rineharts of this world can not get enough. They never do. They think natural justice is for suckers.

    REPLY

    • auntyutaApril 10, 2014 at 10:03 am Edit #

      This is a very interesting subject, Berlioz, isn’t it?
      The question is, what is a “just” society?
      I know that for instance Henry George was an eloquent speaker and writer, advocating for changes in society to achieve “social justice”. In the 1800s millions of people listened to what he had to say. To this day there are people who study him. Alas, nothing much has changed anywhere as far as social justice is concerned.

      Here is a link to my diary on taxes:

      https://auntyuta.com/2014/05/26/utas-diary-6/#comments

The Sydney Siege aftermath

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/sydney-siege-should-not-be-used-to-justify-draconian-anti-terrorism-laws?utm_source=PoliticOz&u

The Sydney siege should not be used to justify draconian new anti-terrorism laws

David Marr

” . . . .

From that point until yesterday’s terrible events, police and Asio had all the authority they needed to keep track of a man who revealed himself over the years to be really nasty and really crazy.

Old laws allowed police to bug his phones, intercept his emails and place him under surveillance. They didn’t even need a warrant to access his metadata and track down everywhere Monis had been and everyone he was talking to year after year.

They didn’t need fresh laws threatening journalists with 10 years’ jail for revealing Asio’s newfangled “special” operations. Look at the superb cooperation the press displayed during the siege: forgoing scoop after scoop to follow the police strategy of denying Monis the oxygen of publicity.

. . . . “

Man Haron Monis’s poison letters split the High Court and laid bare a flaw in the system

https://theconversation.com/man-haron-moniss-poison-letters-split-the-high-court-and-laid-bare-a-flaw-in-the-system-35557

by Jeremy Gans
Professor, Melbourne Law School at University of Melbourne

Man Haron Monis was a madman with a persecution complex, but his frustration with the legal system wasn’t without justification.

This week’s hostage tragedy in Sydney’s Lindt Cafe will cast a long shadow. It will force us to rethink our readiness for emergencies and the adequacy of our criminal justice system.

There has already been debate about NSW’s bail laws, in light of the fact that the hostage taker Man Haron Monis was on bail facing charges of being an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife, Noleen Hayson Pal, when he took 17 people hostage. Café manager Tori Johnson and barrister Katrina Dawson were killed. Monis also died.

A different part of Australia’s justice system provides a backdrop to Monis’s madness. A report in the Sydney Morning Herald claims “it has been Monis’s ongoing legal battle over his conviction for penning the poisonous letters to the families of dead Australian soldiers between 2007 and 2009 that has consumed him”.

This may not be idle speculation. Just last Friday, Monis had been pursuing that legal battle in the High Court of Australia’s Sydney courtroom, 100 metres away from the Martin Place cafe.

Monis’s obsession was not about the truth. He never denied writing offensive letters to the bereaved, nor did he show remorse for doing so. Indeed, he pleaded guilty last year and received a sentence of community service and a good behaviour bond.

Rather, his obsession was about the law. He has always maintained that the federal offence he was charged with and sentenced under – using a postal service to cause offence – was unconstitutional.

His argument is similar to one made in the United States a few years ago, after a fringe sect, the Westboro Baptist Church, picketed soldiers’ funerals with banners such as “God hates fags”. The US Supreme Court bench ruled eight members to one that a civil claim against the sect’s members for damages undermined their right to freedom of speech. But Australia’s constitution is different. We don’t have a Bill of Rights and only a narrow “freedom of political communication”. Monis’s constitutional claim was no certainty.

But here’s the thing that troubles me: despite several High Court hearings, and a full court judgment last year, the High Court has never resolved his claim. When it did issue its judgment on Monis’s arguments in February last year, an extremely rare thing happened.

The Court split evenly. Chief Justice Robert French and Justices Kenneth Hayne and Dyson Heydon agreed with Monis that the federal offence was unconstitutional, while Justices Susan Crennan, Susan Kiefel and Virginia Bell held that it was constitutional.

Because the Monis case was an appeal from NSW’s top court, the tie meant that the NSW decision stood. And, because the NSW Court of Appeal had already ruled against him, that meant that Monis lost his High Court challenge, despite the support of exactly half the Court’s judges.

To be clear, all of this was perfectly legal and proper. But I don’t think that this outcome was just. That’s because we still don’t know if the crime of using a postal service to cause offence is constitutional.

If anyone else has sent an offensive letter (or sends one today, say to Monis’s family) and is convicted of that same crime, then he or she is perfectly free to take a constitutional challenge all the way to the High Court for a fresh ruling. Anyone, that is, except Monis and his co-accused, who already lost that argument by a tie-breaker. I don’t envy the lawyers who had to explain all this to Monis.

It doesn’t have to be this way. For starters, there never have to be such ties in our national court. Australia’s High Court typically sits an odd number of judges to avoid ties, including a full bench of seven judges for constitutional cases like Monis’s.

But only six judges heard Monis’s appeal, because the seventh – Justice William Gummow – was scheduled to retire a week after the case was heard. In accordance with the usual practice, Gummow had stopped hearing cases altogether months earlier to avoid the risk that his retirement would come before the Court’s decision.

This same problem arises each and every time a High Court judge approaches retirement. Indeed, it’s happening right now.

The Court is scheduled to hear six judge cases in important matters through to June next year because two High Court judges are retiring in succession. Any one of them could be another tie.

Cases already at risk of being resolved, perhaps irreversibly, by a tie breaker include regulatory action over Sydney’s radio hoax tragedy, a native title claim over a World War Two training ground, and the aftermath of the collapsed tourism, property and finance group, Octaviar bankruptcy.

This situation is totally unnecessary. In Canada, judges are allowed to participate in judgments up to six months after their retirement. And when Canada’s top court recently found its numbers reduced to eight because of a constitutional challenge to one judge’s appointment, it seemingly responded to a likely tie in one case by scheduling the case to be argued again after the ninth judge was finally appointed.

In Australia, the same problem could be avoided by the government appointing the incoming judge a few months ahead of the outgoing judge’s retirement. That solution will cost a bit more in extra salary, staff and office space for the incoming judge, but there will also be savings in resolving legal uncertainty. For instance, the split outcome in Monis’s case could have been avoided if Justice Stephen Gageler had been appointed just one week earlier.

For cases not resolved in this way, there is another solution: simply allow people who lose because of a tie to bring another challenge if they wish. As it happens, that’s exactly why Monis was in the High Court last Friday. His counsel was seeking to have the Court hear his challenge again. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions argued that Monis should not be allowed a second bite at the cherry. He’d already “lost” and that was it. Monis’s counsel argued that he didn’t “lose” and, anyway, a tie-breaker wasn’t the right way to finalise a constitutional case.

After listening patiently for the allotted twenty minutes, Chief Justice Robert French and Justice Stephen Gageler dismissed Monis’s application. In hindsight, their reasons seem painfully abrupt: it would not be “appropriate” to move Monis’s hearing directly to the High Court “having regard to the history of the matter”.

The matter ended this week for Monis. But it ended without the legal claim that “consumed him” ever being properly resolved (and, indeed, with him being told he would have to pursue his claim for a second time through the complete hierarchy of NSW courts before our national court would even consider ruling on whether doing so was pointless.)

I am not saying that the High Court played even a slight role in this week’s tragedy. Monis was a madman, and would see even perfect justice as yet another conspiracy against him. What I am saying is that, because of a freak quirk in our court procedures, we cannot have the satisfaction of telling ourselves that Monis’s evil, unjust acts came despite him being given good justice by Australia’s courts. The flaw in our national court, while rare (and rarely tragic), is easily fixed.

Reforming France?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/french-economy-minister-macron-seeks-to-reform-france-a-1007539.html

Thirty-six year old Economics Minister Emmanuel Macron has been tasked by French President Hollande with reforming the country. But it won’t be easy. Socialists view him with suspicion and the party’s left wing is already preparing for battle.

. . . . .

The minister for economics, industry and information technology unfurled his far-reaching vision for a reinvigorated France. He spoke of the common welfare, which needed to once again take precedence over individual interests. And he underscored his exposition with a quote from the Socialist reformer Jean Jaurès from the year 1887.

. . . .

A Most Immoral Act

http://theaimn.com/immoral-act/

Morrison and Abbott
In a lifelong experience of following politics I have, until now, never witnessed children being horse traded, and senators being blackmailed, for the passing of legislation. In this case to reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas.

It looks as though Immigration Minister Scott Morrison (and the senators) have taken the yes side on the ageless Christian ethical dilemma “Does the end justify the means”.

It is a fascination to me as to why people assume that religion has some form of monopoly on morality. And even worse, they pretend to speak on Gods behalf in dispensing it.

Morrison said:

“I will not take moral lectures from Bill Shorten or Sarah Hanson-Young when it comes to border protection on that or any other issues,’’

Abbott said:

“So this is a win for Australia, it’s also a win for humanitarian values, it’s a win for human decency’’

Jesus said:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

We are all wired for decency and conscience with or without religion. Some understand it better than others illustrated by either what we do or don’t do. By our mercy and compassion or deficiency in it.

Morrison like many of the Cabinet are serious practicing Christians who interpret God’s word to fit snugly with their political ideology. They easily accommodate policy with their own definition of scripture, justifying their immorality to themselves. An evil in itself.

As someone who spent many years in a church environment similar to Morrison s (now an open-minded atheist) I can assure the reader that there are many who think like Morrison. They worship their politics and religion without demarcation. In doing so they believe that telling the truth isn’t necessarily in their best interests.

This government seems intent on imposing its own particular form of Christianity on an unsuspecting population. And I might add, one that is completely at odds with current Papal uttering on social inequality.

The decision to sack highly credentialed social workers, doing excellent work in high schools and replace them with accredited Chaplains is outrageous.

And now it seems that taxpayer funds are to be used to fund the training of Priests in religious institutions.

What ever happened to the secular society?

The fools that frequent the senate.

The inexperienced cross-bench senators buckled into the ransom dangled before their collective conscience and awarded the executive the power to ‘’play God ‘’ with the lives of those seeking safety from this supposed Christian nation.

In all fairness it could not have been an easy decision.

Senator Muir, said he was:

“Forced into a corner to decide between a bad decision and a worse decision, a position I do not wish on my worst enemies”.

Maybe the Palmer United Party senators felt the same.

It has also been reported that Morrison’s department had children on Christmas Island phone Muir and beg their freedom even giving them the phones to do so. Now that’s something straight out of the “classic hostage situation” handbook. That’s what terrorists do with hostages.

So, with the passing of this Bill what have we ended up with?

Crikey put it this way, calling it an immoral disgrace:

“At 8.06 this morning it was done: the House of Representatives passed the government’s Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, following its passage and amendment just after midnight in the Senate. Parliamentarians then got to go home for Christmas, having delivered the Immigration Minister extraordinary powers that in effect obliterate any further pretence that Australia regards asylum seekers as human beings.

The bill restored the failed Howard-era policy of temporary protection visas, a mechanism that actually increased boat arrivals when last attempted. Whether Clive Palmer seriously believes that there is a pathway to citizenship contained in a kind of homeopathic form within the legislation — or it merely suits its purposes to pretend there is — we don’t know, but Scott Morrison has been crystal clear that TPVs will never provide permanent protection.

But the bill goes much further, freeing Australia from any obligations associated with the Refugee Convention, including giving Morrison and his department — which has repeatedly demonstrated it is profoundly incompetent and resistant to the most basic forms of accountability — the power to return people to torture and persecution without judicial review.”

On the one hand cross bench senators like Ricky Muir, Nick Xenophon might argue that the end does indeed justify the means. After all there will be many freed from their dreadful incarceration and the migrant intake has been increased. But did they consider that Morrison already held powers to resolve these issues, to release people. Especially children. His threat was that unless they passed his legislation they could rot in hell.

They could have called his bluff.

Their pretentious anguish at having to deal with such a choice can’t hide the grim reality of their actions.

Greg Barnes (a spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance and barrister) put this way:

“But in passing this legislation Senator Muir and his colleagues have done what many would think is unconscionable in a society that supposedly subscribes to the rule of law – allow the executive to “play God” with the lives of those in our world who want to put their case for asylum to a rich, developed world country with ample capacity to take them.”

Morrison is now effectively above the High Court and our conformity to the International Convention on Refugees has been written out of our law.

The bill, in all probability is the most immoral ever passed by an Australian Parliament.

Not only that, it is also bad policy. It says much about the leaders of this country and their shameful misrepresentation of the faith they profess to follow.
No matter in what sphere of government policy (immigration, health, pensioners, education etc) one looks, you find the hand of Abbott’s hate on those who refuse to join Team Australia.

He seeks to reward those who follow and punish those who don’t. In the past week much has been written about the horrendous failings of his government.

A lot has centered on Abbott’s credentials as a leader. Therein lies the fundamental problem. For those of us who have followed his career closely, it’s easy. He has none.

Leviticus 19:33-34
“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Excerpts from a recent Speech by Putin

1) Crimea is Russian forever:

It was an event of special significance for the country and the people, because Crimea is where our people live, and the peninsula is of strategic importance for Russia as the spiritual source of the development of a multifaceted but solid Russian nation and a centralised Russian state. It was in Crimea, in the ancient city of Chersonesus or Korsun, as ancient Russian chroniclers called it, that Grand Prince Vladimir was baptised before bringing Christianity to Rus.

In addition to ethnic similarity, a common language, common elements of their material culture, a common territory, even though its borders were not marked then, and a nascent common economy and government, Christianity was a powerful spiritual unifying force that helped involve various tribes and tribal unions of the vast Eastern Slavic world in the creation of a Russian nation and Russian state. It was thanks to this spiritual unity that our forefathers for the first time and forevermore saw themselves as a united nation. All of this allows us to say that Crimea, the ancient Korsun or Chersonesus, and Sevastopol have invaluable civilisational and even sacral importance for Russia, like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for the followers of Islam and Judaism.   And this is how we will always consider it. 

2) Russia will never become an EU colony: 

By the way, Russia has already made a major contribution to helping Ukraine. Let me reiterate that Russian banks already invested some $25 billion in Ukraine. Last year, Russia’s Finance Ministry extended a loan worth another $3 billion. Gazprom provided another $5.5 billion to Ukraine and even offered a discount that no one promised, requiring the country to pay $4.5 billion. Add it all up and you get as much as $ 32.5-33.5 billion that were provided only recently.

Of course, we have the right to ask questions. What was this Ukrainian tragedy for? Wasn’t it possible to settle all the issues, even disputed issues, through dialogue, within a legal framework and legitimately?   But now we are being told that this was actually competent, balanced politics that we should comply with unquestionably and blindfolded.

This will never happen.   If for some European countries national pride is a long-forgotten concept and sovereignty is too much of a luxury, true sovereignty for Russia is absolutely necessary for survival. 

3)  The Empire was Russia’s mortal enemy long before Crimea

We remember well how and who, almost openly, supported separatism back then and even outright terrorism in Russia, referred to murderers, whose hands were stained with blood, none other than rebels and organised high-level receptions for them. These “rebels” showed up in Chechnya again. I’m sure the local guys, the local law enforcement authorities, will take proper care of them. They are now working to eliminate another terrorist raid. Let’s support them.

Let me reiterate, we remember high-level receptions for terrorists dubbed as fighters for freedom and democracy. Back then, we realised that the more ground we give and the more excuses we make, the more our opponents become brazen and the more cynical and aggressive their demeanor becomes.

Despite our unprecedented openness back then and our willingness to cooperate in all, even the most sensitive issues, despite the fact that we considered – and all of you are aware of this and remember it – our former adversaries as close friends and even allies, the support for separatism in Russia from across the pond, including information, political and financial support and support provided by the special services – was absolutely obvious and left no doubt that they would gladly let Russia follow the Yugoslav scenario of disintegration and dismemberment. With all the tragic fallout for the people of Russia.

It didn’t work. We didn’t allow that to happen.

Just as it did not work for Hitler with his people-hating ideas, who set out to destroy Russia and push us back beyond the Urals. Everyone should remember how it ended.

4) Russia will not be bullied

No one will ever attain military superiority over Russia. We have a modern and combat ready army. As they now put it, a polite, but formidable army. We have the strength, will and courage to protect our freedom.

We will protect the diversity of the world. We will tell the truth to people abroad, so that everyone can see the real and not distorted and false image of Russia. We will actively promote business and humanitarian relations, as well as scientific, education and cultural relations. We will do this even if some governments attempt to create a new iron curtain around Russia.

We will never enter the path of self-isolation, xenophobia, suspicion and the search for enemies.   All this is evidence of weakness, while we are strong and confident.

Our Parliament in Disarray

Jenni of  ‘Unload and Unwind’  says in a comment from today that they are ‘trying a number of avenues to force a double dissolution of parliament which mean an immediate election. The government has managed to dodge it so far and parliament has risen for the year. There won’t be another opening until 2015 when it sits again so for the next month we’re going around Australia door knocking for signatures in every state. It’s a combined effort of a number of aid agencies and community groups as well as backing by the different churches and business leaders – it’s all we have at the moment. I just hope it will be enough.

So I understand that Jenni thinks door knocking for signatures in every state is all they have at the moment. I have a few questions to this. How many signatures would you need to get the PM to call for a double dissolution? Is it not essential to first of all get the elected representatives on your side? Instead of aiming for an immediate election would it not be preferable to get more people in the coalition government on your side, meaning that the coalition government could possibly come to the conclusion that it would be better to elect new leaders who consider a bit more the human aspect in their legislations?

Personally I do imagine that a lot of the coalition members hate the new legislation!

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/ricky-muirs-anguish-on-asylum-vote-20141205-1219av.html

‘ . . . . .

 

Refugee advocates and lawyers expressed alarm at the passage of the laws, which restore temporary protection visas for the “legacy” caseload of 30,000 asylum seekers who arrived before July 19 last year and will allow those detained on Christmas Island to be transferred to the mainland.

The legislation also dramatically strengthens the government’s powers to detain asylum seekers at sea and take them “anywhere in the world”, introduces a new safe-haven enterprise visa and includes fast-track processing that Amnesty International says will see “some refugees returned to the hands of their torturers”.

Senator Muir and other crossbenchers said they had supported the legislation because the government had said that, if it did not pass, the 30,000 would be “left in limbo” and 1550 who arrived between July 19 and the election would be sent to Nauru.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young launched a scathing attack on Mr Morrison saying he had “successfully blackmailed” the Senate cross bench by holding refugee children hostage.

“Tonight we saw children on Christmas Island being handed the phone number of Senator Muir, and they were asked to call that number and beg that senator to let them out. If that is not treating children as hostages, what is it?” she told the Senate.

A spokesman for Senator Muir said he had not spoken to any children on the island and a defiant Mr Morrison replied that he did not take moral lectures from Senator Hanson-Young or Labor leader Bill Shorten. “They have proven themselves irrelevant and impotent when it comes to having solutions on border protection,” he said.

Refugee lawyer David Manne said the new laws were “patently unfair, undermine the rule of law and will endanger lives”.’

31000 Asylum Seekers’ Chance of Settlement

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/27/scott-morrison-may-be-forced-to-give-31000-asylum-seekers-chance-of-settlement

“The “deal” between the Palmer United party and the immigration minister to reintroduce temporary protection visas is looking shaky as PUP expresses deep concerns Scott Morrison’s legislation goes far beyond what was agreed.

. . . . . .

Guardian Australia understands the Senate is very likely to insist on a clear “pathway to permanence”.

Palmer had immediate concerns about the bill and sent a “please explain” letter to Morrison when a parliamentary human rights committee including five members of the Coalition found the bill was incompatible with human rights.”