Australian Greens not all in agreement with Jonathan Moylan’s Whitehaven Coal stunt
Greens at odds over Whitehaven stunt, The Age, 17 Jan 13
The Australian Greens are split over a hoax that temporarily wiped $300 million off the value of Whitehaven Coal. The Greens leader, Christine Milne, has said the action was part of a long history of civil disobedience. Her colleague Lee Rhiannon congratulated the activist Jonathan Moylan, who issued a bogus press release purporting to be from ANZ Bank cancelling a loan facility. But another Greens senator, Sarah Hanson-Young, said the stunt was not something she would encourage. She told Sky News: ”I wouldn’t be encouraging people to go willy-nilly and taking this type of action. I understand why it was taken, I understand the frustrations but don’t encourage others to do it.” Another Greens senator, Peter Whish-Wilson, told The Australian Financial Review he would not have taken such action or congratulated Mr Moylan for it.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/greens-at-odds-over-whitehaven-stunt-20130117-2cw44.html
1 Comment »
Leave a reply to Brett Burnard Stokes Cancel reply
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Moylan is in trouble, having had assets (phone and computer) seized and looking at a charge under Section 1041E of the Corporations Act, which deals with making false or misleading statements. The act states a person must not make statements that “have the effect of increasing, reducing, maintaining or stabilising the price for trading in financial products on a financial market operated in this jurisdiction”.
Does Section 1041E of the Corporations Act apply to Nuclear Advocacy Fraud by The University of Adelaide?
I think it does ….
Clearly the December 6th post on FaceBook (by The Environment Institute, a business operated by The University of Adelaide), would have the effect of “increasing, reducing, maintaining or stabilising the price” of shares in a number of companies, particularly BHP Billiton, operators of the uranium mine at Olympic Dam and other uranium mining companies.
Further, I ask the question does The University of Adelaide or any of its officers own such shares?
—————————————————————-
from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s1041e.html
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 – SECT 1041E
False or misleading statements
(1) A person must not (whether in this jurisdiction or elsewhere) make a statement, or disseminate information, if:
(a) the statement or information is false in a material particular or is materially misleading; and
(b) the statement or information is likely:
(i) to induce persons in this jurisdiction to apply for financial products; or
(ii) to induce persons in this jurisdiction to dispose of or acquire financial products; or
(iii) to have the effect of increasing, reducing, maintaining or stabilising the price for trading in financial products on a financial market operated in this jurisdiction; and
(c) when the person makes the statement, or disseminates the information:
(i) the person does not care whether the statement or information is true or false; or
(ii) the person knows, or ought reasonably to have known, that the statement or information is false in a material particular or is materially misleading.
Note 1: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). For defences to a prosecution based on this subsection, see Division 4.
Note 2: Failure to comply with this subsection may also lead to civil liability under section 1041I. For relief from liability under that section, see Division 4.
(2) For the purposes of the application of the Criminal Code in relation to an offence based on subsection (1), paragraph (1)(a) is a physical element, the fault element for which is as specified in paragraph (1)(c).
(3) For the purposes of an offence based on subsection (1), strict liability applies to subparagraphs (1)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii).
Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
LikeLike