Labor’s decision to pull UNRWA funding is just wrong
By Hannah Thomas | 12 February 2024, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/labors-decision-to-pull-unrwa-funding-is-just-wrong,18312—
The Albanese Government’s decision to pull UNRWA funding has rendered Australia complicit in the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, writes Hannah Thomas.
ON 26 JANUARY, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its provisional ruling ordering Israel to, among other things, not commit acts of genocide and take immediate steps to ensure aid could reach civilians in Gaza.
The logical response, from a government that loves throwing around phrases like “international rules-based order” would have been to publicly back the ICJ’s ruling, demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire to allow aid to reach Palestinians in Gaza, increase aid to Palestine and stop military exports to Israel.
These responses were all logical – and not to mention morally necessary – many weeks ago, but the ICJ’s assessment that Israel’s military campaign is an existential threat to Palestinians in Gaza should have made these steps inevitable for the Albanese Government.
And yet less than 24 hours after the ICJ’s ruling, Minister Penny Wong announced the Albanese Government wouldn’t be stepping in to prevent a genocide. The Albanese Government wouldn’t punish the entity committing the genocide, it would punish its victims.
Based on allegations from the same entity freshly implicated by the ICJ, the Australian Government suspended funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), blindly and rashly following the United States and other “like-minded” countries.
Now, to the surprise of absolutely no one, the allegations have been exposed as baseless. As reported by the UK’s Channel 4, the dossier sent by Israel to UNRWA donors to justify its allegations didn’t contain a shred of evidence. And yet, the suspension of funding still stands.
Penny Wong and other Labor MPs dance around the issue, acknowledging the crucial, lifesaving work that UNRWA does, saying the Albanese Government is considering its next steps to increase funding for UNRWA in the future, while conveniently ignoring that they are currently crippling its operations at the most crucial of times. It is not clear what evidence they relied on to make the decision.
Every day that funds are suspended has grave consequences. The importance of UNRWA’s role is incontrovertible and utterly immense. In ordinary times, it is the only organisation with a mandate to provide relief and essential services to over 5 million Palestinian refugees in the region — a country’s worth of people.
In current times, more than 2 million Palestinians in Gaza depend on UNRWA for their immediate survival. More than a million people are sheltering in UNRWA schools and facilities as Israel indiscriminately rains hell on Gaza. These UNRWA facilities have been mercilessly targeted by Israel, who have slaughtered over 150 UNRWA staff since 7 October 2023. The Albanese Government has not imposed a single consequence on Israel.
It must be emphasised that even if the allegations were proven true, the decision would still be wrong. UNRWA already acted on the allegations before the Australian Government suspended funding: it sacked nine of those accused, while two are missing and one is dead. Even if UNRWA had not acted, punishing millions of Palestinians for the actions of 12 people would be unreasonable, but the point is that it has.
It is clear that the Albanese Government has already made us complicit in genocide, through military exports to Israel, the significant diplomatic cover it provides Israel and its refusal to call for a ceasefire. But continuing to starve UNRWA takes things to a new level.
Francis Boyle, a human rights lawyer who successfully argued a genocide case at the ICJ for Bosnia and Herzegovina, states that countries cutting off funding to UNRWA, have moved past aiding and abetting Israeli genocide.
He argues:
“These states are now also directly violating Genocide Convention Article 2(c) themselves: ‘Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’.”
Michael Fakhri, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, said that by cutting UNRWA funding, countries like Australia had turned an imminent famine into an “inevitable” one.
The decision to suspend UNRWA funding was unforgivable and utterly incomprehensible. To maintain the suspension in the face of what have proven to be baseless allegations is even more unforgivable.
The Albanese Government must immediately reverse its decision and should also increase funding to the UNRWA to compensate for its wrongful suspension.
Vatican not happy with Australia getting nuclear submarines (that’s except for George Pell, who backs them)
Vatican drops its oar into Aussie bid for nuclear submarines, THE AUSTRALIAN, TESS LIVINGSTONE 3 Oct 21, The Vatican has raised concerns about AUKUS, Australia’s defence collaboration with the US and Britain, especially the agreement to help the Australian Navy acquire a fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines.
Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, the main architect of the Vatican’s secretive agreement with the Chinese Communist Party government, spoke to journalists on September 23, during a meeting of the European’s People’s Party in Rome. He is second behind Pope Francis in the church hierarchy.
“The Holy See is against rearmament,’’ Cardinal Parolin said. “All the efforts that have been made and are being made by the Vatican are to eliminate nuclear weapons because they are not the way to maintain peace and security in the world. They create even more dangers for peace and even more conflict.’’
……… Cardinal George Pell, who has returned to Rome from Australia and was questioned last week about Cardinal Parolin’s views, backed the deal and the AUKUS partnership. “I agree, as do the vast majority of my fellow citizens and the political forces of government and opposition,’’ he told Italian newspaper Avvenire…….. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/vatican-drops-its-oar-into-aussie-bid-for-nuclear-submarines/news-story/8e5f5aede5b66ae8ca611655f42856b8
Red Cross celebrates Nuclear Ban Treaty- an incremental process towards elimination of nuclear weapons
 Crucial to sign up for a nuclear-free celebration. https://www.theage.com.au/national/crucial-to-sign-up-for-a-nuclear-free-celebration-20210121-p56vtl.htmly Kym Pfitzner
January 22, 2021 — It’s taken 75 years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to reach the historic day when we finally have a ban on nuclear weapons enshrined in international law.
Today is a day for celebration. From January 22, all nations that ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons are banned from possessing, developing or having any direct dealings with these weapons of mass destruction. This development heralds progress towards a safer and more humane world. The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement across the globe has been striving towards this moment for three-quarters of a century. How timely it is to achieve this milestone after a year of uncertainty and difficulties. I commend the 86 countries which have already signed this important treaty – from Austria to Zimbabwe – and particularly the 51 nations that have ratified it. They’ve put the interests of humanity and the environment above other considerations. I’d like to remind all other nations of our organisation’s inability to provide any remotely adequate medical or humanitarian response to a nuclear crisis and call on all countries which are yet to sign – including Australia, the nuclear-armed nations, and some of their allies – to do so now. But today should still be celebrated. It’s the dawn of new era in which the last weapon of mass destruction to be regulated by international law will finally begin to be controlled. Other weapons that cause unacceptable harm – contrary to the laws of war – have already been banned, such as cluster munitions, anti-personnel landmine and chemical weapons. Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the rules of international humanitarian law. The laws of war are unambiguous: weapons must be able to distinguish between civilians and combatants, as only combatants can be legally attacked. Weapons must not cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. Their effects must be proportionate to their military objective. And weapons cannot be used if they cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment. Rather than leaving the fate of these weapons to the handful of countries that legally own them, and which were not fulfilling their obligation to work towards their elimination, the public debate has been reframed from being defined as a matter of defence policy, to being about the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of use of nuclear weapons. We know all about those consequences. Members of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement were there when the bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was little they could do to deal with the immediate needs of those needing help, or to alleviate the long-term suffering of the people on the ground. The impacts lasted decades and, devastatingly, even affected the children of those who survived those bombs. Research is still being conducted to determine whether the illnesses being experienced by descendants – two generations later – can be explained by mutations in their DNA that was caused by radiation. With the coming into force of this treaty, let’s hope we’re getting closer to the time that we’re never that helpless again. We want Australians to know that nuclear weapons are not an acceptable defence policy option. They are barbaric tools that cause hellish devastation and untold suffering to civilians. Some critics argue the treaty is toothless because the nuclear-armed nations and their allies have not yet signed it. This ignores the reality of International law-making, which is that creating new norms is an incremental process. It takes patience and persistence. No weapon has ever been eliminated without first being studied, stigmatised and prohibited. With the advent of a vaccine for COVID-19, we can be cautiously hopeful that the end of the current global pandemic is in sight. Unfortunately, though, we can’t rely on medical science to save us from the impacts of a nuclear attack. There can be no vaccine for the health effects of a nuclear weapon. Elimination is the only option. This is why we believe in a future without nuclear weapons. Kym Pfitzner is the CEO of Australian Red Cross. |
|
|
Judge’s refusal to extradite Julian Assange is still part of cowardly process to deny freedom of information
The personal conveniently distracts from the political in the Assange story, https://www.theage.com.au/national/the-personal-conveniently-distracts-from-the-political-in-the-assange-story-20210107-p56siu.html
Elizabeth Farrelly Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s refusal to extradite Julian Assange for “mental health” reasons may look humanitarian but is in fact a deft political move. In reducing what should be an argument of law and principle to a test of personality, Baraitser managed at a blow to impugn Assange’s stability, repudiate any suggestion of innocence and open the door for America to prove the comforts of its solitary confinement and thereby win his extradition.
It’s a story of many twists and turns but underlying it throughout is a profound and widespread moral cowardice.
Baraitser’s 132-page ruling found that although the UK-US Extradition Treaty of 2003 specifically prohibits extradition for “political offence”, this provision never became law in the UK and therefore has no effect. In essence, the treaty is worthless.
The court also supported all 18 of the espionage charges against Assange, arguing that WikiLeaks’ hacking and publication “would amount to” offences in English law. Baraitser identified eight charges under the UK Official Secrets Act that would be, she said, equivalent.
Interestingly, this “would have” construction does not apply to the treaty question. Had Assange engaged in the same conduct in America, targeting British government information, he could not have been extradited because America’s “monist” system regards any treaty as law once signed. So it’s ironic that undermining this particular protection is a key US argument.
Anyone who saw the 2019 docudrama Official Secrets, chronicling the leakage by GCHQ analyst-turned-whistleblower Katharine Gun of information on US-UK dirty dealing in drumming up UN support for the Iraq war, will understand just how murky and terrifying such prosecutions can become.
This fear, and the persistent cowardice of yielding to it, is the theme of Assange’s story. I’ve written about Assange several times. I visited him in Ecuador’s embassy. Yet each time, I’ve found myself reluctant.
Seven years ago, when I met him, Assange was ebullient and hopeful, even funny. Now, as Baraitser says, he is “a depressed and sometimes despairing man who is genuinely fearful about his future”. Assange, she said, was at “high risk of serious depression leading to suicide if he were to be extradited and placed in solitary confinement for a long period”.
Baraitser noted the “bleak” conditions of Assange’s likely US confinement would include “severely restrictive detention conditions designed to remove physical contact and reduce social interaction and contact with the outside world to a bare minimum”, with family limited to one supervised 15-minute phone call a month. Detailing Assange’s mental state, she opined that his risk of suicide, in such conditions, was “very high”. This is the loophole she offers the appellant US prosecutor.
Those fears – his of 175 years in solitary (honestly, who wouldn’t top themselves?) and hers of his suicide – underpin her judgment. But there are other, more insidious fears at play here.
Such fears, I see now, feed my reluctance to revisit the Assange story: fear, in particular, of confronting the terrifying truth about our imperial system. Regardless of Assange’s innocence or guilt, the simple facts of what our controlling powers can do to you if you step out of line are terrifying.
But this small, individual fear also operates, very effectively, at nation level.
From the start, the case against Assange has contrived to turn issues of principle into questions of personality. The initial Swedish rape charges, since dropped for lack of evidence as the witness’s recollections after so long were clouded, were extremely personal, spinning off the cancellation of his credit cards upon his arrival in Stockholm, forcing him to accept hospitality; the seductions, the sex – which everyone agrees was consensual – his failure to wear a condom although asked and reluctance to take an STD test. Then the left turned against him because of the Clinton leaks – which one suspects would have been fine, had they been directed at the other side – and perceptions about Assange’s ego. He was vain, it was said, and narcissistic. As if that itself were a crime, reason enough to let him rot in solitary.
The personal and emotive nature of all this – the Swedish prosecutor’s refusal to interview him in London, Britain’s willingness to imprison him for a year on bail charges, America’s determination to prosecute him for exposing their war crimes (in the Iraq War Logs of October 2010 and the film Collateral Murder showing air crew shooting unarmed civilians from a helicopter) and the description of WikiLeaks by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as “a hostile non-state intelligence service” – all suggest a bigger picture, and smaller values, than mere truth or justice.
It’s often said that Assange endangered the lives of US informers but, as Baraitser notes, no causality has been shown. Even the Senate Committee on Armed Service said, “the review to date has not revealed any sensitive sources and methods compromised by disclosure”. It is said that Assange, by dumping hacked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, gave us Trump. But if she was engaged in skulduggery as alleged, wasn’t it better for the world to make its own judgment?
When you look coldly at the facts it’s hard not to suspect that Sweden was coerced into the original charges and that Britain and Ecuador have been similarly pressured. Certainly Australia’s persistent refusal to intervene for Assange, an Australian citizen who has broken no Australian law, suggests a similar abject timidity in the face of US might.
That’s the fear that guys like Assange and Edward Snowden make us confront. And it’s why they deserve, at the very least, a fair and open trial.
Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) question government’s plan for nuclear waste dump near Kimba, South Australia
Time for action over proposed nuclear dump, https://thesoutherncross.org.au/opinion/2020/04/24/time-for-action-over-proposed-nuclear-dump/ Michele Madigan April 24, 2020
The reality is that over 90 per cent of the waste, measured by radioactivity, is intermediate long-lived waste including the nuclear spent fuel rods and also the parts of the previous nuclear reactor.
The Barngala initiated a legal action protesting their exclusion. Sadly their appeal has recently been denied. As Barngarla Traditional Owner Jeanne Miller laments, Aboriginal people with no voting power are put back 50 years, ‘again classed as flora and fauna’.
With Pope Francis’s designation of practical Care for Earth as the 8th Beatitude, a wonderful Lenten/post-Lenten penance might be a concerned letter to alert an Opposition or cross bench SA senator at Parliament House, Canberra 5600. The Senate vote is likely at the end of June.
Australia’s dangerous subservience to the war-obsessed USA
|
JOHN MENADUE: Tugging our forelock again and again to our dangerous ally. An update, Michael West.com by John Menadue — 30 December 2019 The US has coming calling again. Not an Admiral this time but the Pentecostalist Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. He is whistling us up as a faithful dog to join with the US in tackling the problems which Donald Trump created with Iran and presumably to soften us up to host missiles to protect the US marines and port facilities in Darwin. And Pine Gap. John Menadue reports.
We are being softened up again step by step to support the US military and industrial complex that promotes perpetual war. The US is the greatest threat to peace in the world. It is an aggressor across the globe. It is the most violent country both at home and abroad. And people know it. The Pew Research Centre found in 2018 that 45% of people surveyed around the world saw “US power and influence as a major threat”. Retired US Defence, Secretary James (Jim) Mattis, complained that President Trump should show more respect for allies. But the US shows most respect for allies that do what they are told or supinely comply, like Australia. Our PM even gets an invitation to dinner with Trump. Scott Morrison could not contain his eagerness. Our media join in the vicarious thrill of it all. Apart from brief isolationist periods, the US has been almost perpetually at war; wars that we have been foolishly drawn into. The US has subverted and overthrown numerous governments over two centuries. It has a military and business complex, a “hidden state”, that depends on war for influence and enrichment. It believes in its “manifest destiny” which brings with it an assumed moral superiority which it denies to others. The problems did not start with Trump. They are long-standing and deep rooted. Unfortunately, many of our political, bureaucratic, business and media “elites” have been so long on an American drip feed that they find it hard to think of a world without an American focus. We had a similar and dependent view of the UK in the past. That ended in tears in Singapore. Conservatives rail about Chinese influence but they and we are immersed and dominated by all things American, including the Murdoch media. Our media do regard Australia as the 51st American state. Just look at the saturation coverage of the Democrat primaries with the presidential election still 10 months away! Easy and lazy news. I’ts harder and nowhere near as interesting to cover much more important news in Indonesia and Malaysia. In an earlier article (Is war in the American DNA?), I drew attention to the risks we run in being “joined at the hip” to a country that is almost always at war. The facts are clear. The US has never had a decade without war. Since its founding in 1776, the US has been at war 93% of the time. These wars have extended from its own hemisphere, to the Pacific, to Europe and most recently to the Middle East. The US has launched 201 out of 248 armed conflicts since the end of WWII. In recent decades most of these wars have been unsuccessful. The US maintains 700 military bases or sites around the world including in Australia. In our own region it has massive deployment of hardware and troops in Japan, the ROK and Guam. …. Despite all the evidence of wars and meddling in other countries’ affairs, the American Imperium continues without serious check or query in America or Australia. …… The second reason why the American Imperium continues largely unchecked is the power of what President Eisenhower once called the “military and industrial complex” in the US. In 2019, I would add the intelligence community and politicians to that complex who depend heavily on funding from powerful arms manufacturers across the country and the military and civilian personnel in over 4,000 military facilities across the US. Democrats and Republicans both court these wealthy arms suppliers and their employees. The intelligence community, universities and think-tanks also have a vested interest in the American Imperium. This complex which co-opts institutions and individuals in Australia, is often called “the hidden state”. It has enormous influence. No US president nor for that matter any Australian prime minister would likely challenge it. Australia has locked itself into this complex. Our military and defence leaders are heavily dependent on the US Departments of Defence and State, the CIA and the FBI for advice. But it goes beyond advice. The “five eyes” led by the CIA applied pressure to us on 5G as part of a broader campaign to attack almost all things Chinese.We willingly respond and join the US in disasters like Iraq and the Middle East. While the UN General Assembly votes with large majorities to curb nuclear proliferation, we remain locked in to the position of the US and other nuclear powers…… The US military and industrial complex and its associates have a vested interest in America being at war and our defence establishment, Department of Defence, ADF, Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the “Intelligence” community are locked-in American loyalists…… Like many democracies, including our own, money and vested interests are corrupting public life. “Democracy” in the US has been replaced by “Donocracy”, with practically no restrictions on funding of elections and political activity for decades. Vested interests are largely unchecked. House of Representatives electorates are gerrymandered and poor and minority group voters are often excluded from the rolls. The powerful Jewish lobby, supported by fundamentalist Christians, has run US policy off the rails on Israel and the Middle East. The US has slipped to number 21 as a “flawed democracy” in the Economist’s Intelligence 2016 Democracy Index. (NZ was ranked 4 and Australia 10). It noted that “public confidence in government has slumped to historic lows in the US.” That was before Trump! Many democracies are in trouble. US democracy is in more trouble than most. There is a pervasive sickness…….
But it is not just the destructive role of News Corp in US, UK and Australia. Our media, including the ABC and even SBS, is so derivative. Our media seems to regard Australia as an island parked off New York. We are saturated with news, views, entertainment and sit-coms from the US. It is so pervasive and extensive, we don’t recognize it for its very nature…… A further reason for the continuing US hegemony in Australian attitudes is the galaxy of Australian opinion leaders who have benefitted from American largesse and support – in the media, politics, bureaucracy, business, trade unions, universities and think-tanks. Thousands of influential Australians have been co-opted by US money and support in “dialogues”, study centres and think tanks. The US has nourished agents of influence in Australia for decades. China is a raw beginner in the use of soft power. How long will Australian denial of US policies continue? When will some of us stand up? When will our humiliation end?……. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/john-menadue-us-alliance-more-likely-to-get-us-into-trouble-than-out/ |
|
|
A twisted and so-called religious view of bushfires and climate change
|
Israel Folau links bushfire crisis to same-sex marriage and abortion, SMH, By Megan Gorrey, November 17, 2019 Sacked rugby union star Israel Folau has linked the NSW bushfire crisis and drought to legalising same-sex marriage and abortion, warning the disasters are a “little taste of God’s judgment”.Speaking at his church in north-west Sydney, Folau said his remarks were a “message mainly for the people that are outside [the church], within the world”. The video footage was posted online on Sunday….
“Look how rapid, these bushfires, these droughts, all these things have come, in a short period of time. You think it’s a coincidence or not? God is speaking to you guys, Australia, you need to repent. “What you see right now in the world is only a little taste of God’s judgment that’s coming, it’s not even a big thing.” Folau said the natural disasters were “no coincidence” and the solution was for people to “turn from their wicked ways”…… https://www.smh.com.au/national/israel-folau-links-bushfire-crisis-to-same-sex-marriage-and-abortion-20191117-p53bf4.html?list_name=40_smh_newsalert&promote_channel=edmail&utm_campaign=smh-am-newsletter&utm_content=TOP_STORIES&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter& |
|
Australia sells weapons to Saudi-led coalition, is complicit in human rights abuses
Australia’s arms deals ignoring ‘gross violations of human rights’, ex-defence official says https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/08/australias-arms-deals-ignoring-gross-violations-of-human-rights-ex-defence-official-says?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1567888161
Defence department says it provides export permits only if satisfied that the weapons will not be used in breach of international law Ben Doherty, 8 Sept 19, A former secretary of the Australian defence department says the country cannot justify selling weapons to militaries involved in the five-year war in Yemen, which now stand “accused of gross violations of human rights and likely war crimes by the UN”.
And the Australian co-author of the just-released United Nations report into human rights atrocities in Yemen has said governments that sell weapons to belligerent countries are responsible for prolonging the conflict and contributing to immense humanitarian suffering.
The report found that the conflict had been plagued by human rights abuses, including hospitals being bombed, civilians being deliberately targeted by shelling and sniper fire, civilian populations being deliberately starved, medical supplies being blocked, rape, murder, enforced disappearances, torture, and children being forced to fight.
Australia is one of several countries that sell weapons to those that are part of the Saudi-led Coalition in conflict with the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Australian government says it imposes strict controls on exports to ensure they are not used in the Yemeni conflict.
But the former secretary of the department of defence Paul Barratt told Guardian Australia that regardless of whether Australian-made weapons were crossing the border into Yemen, “the fact remains that Australia now has a national policy which seeks and facilitates weapons sales with countries that stand accused of gross violations of human rights and likely war crimes”.
“When did this particular trade in arms become official Australian policy? Even if we are successfully legally tiptoeing around the Arms Trade Treaty, such deals surely cannot be acceptable on moral or ethical grounds,” Barratt said. “As a country that routinely asks other countries to abide by the rules-based international order, it would seem hypocritical, at best, that Australia is now willing to … make a profit from, weapons sales to nations that are openly flouting this international order.”
The report said hospitals had been bombed, civilians attacked and starvation used as a tactic of war, and alleged that there had been a “collective failure” from the international community to intervene in the five-year war to reduce the suffering of civilians; rather, support from international actors had prolonged the conflict. The public report detailed a list of the key military, political participants in the conflict. A confidential list of those most likely to be complicit in war crimes has been sent to the UN.
Parke said Yemeni civilians had “borne the brunt” of a brutal conflict that was being exacerbated by international indifference, and material support from some governments.
Why Australia should absolutely not contemplate getting nuclear weapons
Australia could equally consider acquiring nerve gas or biological weapons as a “deterrent”, but the notion is unthinkable. The acquisition of nuclear weapons, which are far more destructive, should be equally so.
Professor White’s advice to keep the nuclear weapons option open should be rejected outright. It is a recipe for nuclear weapons proliferation, and a world armed to the teeth with self-destructive capacity. We survived the Cold War but might not be so lucky again. Nuclear weapons must be abolished, and the discussion in Australia should be about rapidly getting on board with global efforts to achieve this critical goal.
Signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons would be a good start.
Our own nuclear weapons? That’s the exact opposite of what we should do https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6261965/our-own-nuclear-weapons-thats-the-exact-opposite-of-what-we-should-do/, Sue Wareham 8 Jul 19
A grandmother explains the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change
Our Future || Caring for planet is a moral responsibility https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6244511/caring-for-planet-is-a-moral-responsibility/?cs=14246 Thea Ormerod, 30 June 19
I am a grandmother with eight grandchildren. Sometimes I lie awake at night worrying about how our changing climate is going to affect their future.
I attend the church of Our Lady of Fatima at Kingsgrove.
It was signed by 153 religious leaders from across the spectrum, many of them in very senior roles.
Climate change and the burning of fossil fuels is a moral issue. Saving the world is a spiritual matter. I don’t interpret spiritual as “other worldly”.
Spirituality for me is about being responsible and reasonable, which shows in healthy relationships.
You see the fruits in laughter, peace and kindness towards each other. In his time on earth, Jesus himself was less interested in rules and who was or wasn’t praying.
He was interested in who was caring about people, especially people who are suffering.
Today, the people who have been hit hardest by climate change are mostly in developing countries, and they’ve done nothing to contribute to the problem.
Those suffering most in Australia are largely people in rural and regional areas. They are on the frontline of droughts, bushfires, intense heat and flooding, left grieving for lost herds and ruined crops.
But people in these areas are being sold short by politicians who are not planning for a more sustainable future, which includes an orderly transition away from the mining and burning of fossil fuels.
Many other nations are making big commitments to reduce emissions but Australia is out of step.
Our elected representatives may think politics is not about religion or spirituality. But it is about morality and caring about people.
Australia’s religious leaders call on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to act on climate change
‘For the sake of generations to come’: Faith leaders unite on climate change https://www.sbs.com.au/news/for-the-sake-of-generations-to-come-faith-leaders-unite-on-climate-change 26 June 19, More than 150 religious leaders have issued an open letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, urging him to show moral leadership on the issue of climate change.
Faith leaders from across the religious divide have gathered in Sydney to call on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to show moral leadership on climate change.
The joint press conference kicked off with Rabbi Johnathan Keren-Black blowing a ram’s horn to symbolise raising the alarm.
Environmental Advisor for the Council of Progressive Rabbis, Rabbi Keren-Black said the world is facing a “climate emergency”.
Judaism believes that we have a responsibility to be caretakers for God’s world, and we’re not doing a very good job of it at the moment.”
More than 150 religious leaders – including the heads of the Uniting Church in Australia, the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils, Muslims Australia and the National Council of Churches – on Tuesday issued an open letter to Mr Morrison.
The letter calls on the Prime Minister to make addressing climate change his number one priority.
Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC) President Thea Ormerod described climate change as a moral issue that needs to be urgently addressed.
“We have an urgent challenge which we all share, a moral challenge. It’s not just a political issue or an economic issue, it’s also a moral issue and all of us are standing together with one voice today,” she said.
Under the banner of Australian Religious Response to Climate Change, the group is calling for a stop to new coal and gas projects, stopping Adani’s controversial coal mine in central Queensland and moving to 100 per cent renewable energy by the year 2030.
Despite the differences in our faith, we all regard addressing the climate emergency as our shared moral challenge. We stand together for our common home, the Earth,” the letter says.
“Will you and your Government have the courage to agree to this simple threefold agenda? We pray that you will.”
Loreto Sister Libby Rogerson said there is a sacred responsibility to care for the earth and all living beings.
“We are concerned for the poorest and most vulnerable, and it is the poorest and most vulnerable of people and nations that are affected by Climate Change,” she said.
Federation of Australian Budhist Councils Spokesperson Gawaine Powell Davies also attended the press conference, and said climate change is driven by “human foolishness”.
“We have a very sharp analysis of human foolishness which has led us to put greed and short-term benefit ahead of the long-term interests of ourselves and our children, and our grandchildren,” Mr Powell Davies said.
The Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, along with senior Rabbis, bishops and theologians have also signed the letter.
Catholic Religious Australia: temporary nuclear waste dump will cause serious future problems
Catholic Religious Australia 1 August 2018
Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) comprises representatives of religious congregations of women and men throughout the nation. As a group historically involved with the education of generations of young Australians, CRA is concerned that short term proposals for the storage of Australia’s nuclear waste will leave insoluble problems for present and future generations.
Three sites, all in South Australia, have been shortlisted by the Federal Government for a nuclear waste facility that will permanently hold low-level nuclear waste and temporarily hold intermediate level waste, toxic for up to 10,000 years. Two are close to the international grain farming area near Kimba and one near Hawker in the iconic Flinders Ranges. All three sites are strongly contested.
‘Our members’, said CRA President, Sr Monica Cavanagh, ‘question the sense, the expense and the risks of transporting long lived intermediate nuclear waste from where it is temporarily housed at Lucas Heights, 1700 kilometres across the country to be temporarily stored in a regional, yet to be built, facility.’ ‘It is disturbing,’ she went on, ‘that it is not clear how long the intermediate level waste will be simply stored at this temporary site as there is no plan for its permanent disposal.’
CRA warns that acknowledging ‘Aboriginal peoples’ strong relationship to the land’ must be more than words. We are uneasy that acknowledgement and the promise of ready, substantial money to under-funded communities/regions both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, has exerted unfair pressure to expose their lands and community members to such risks now and for countless generations.
CRA points out that the unknown dangers of groundwater contamination have not been sufficiently examined and that transport accidents are a real possibility. Moreover, the Barndioota site, and the entire Flinders Ranges, is considered seismically active. Understandably, the Kimba international grain farming markets are also at risk by association.
The submissions to the Senate inquiry make sobering reading. This process makes communities feel powerless – no support is given to those with opposing views, it is a process that is heavily favoured towards those pro-nuclear and when the rules keep changing to suit those in favour it really gives people a sense of hopelessness. Kimba resident (Submission No. 61)
Given that most of Australia’s intermediate level nuclear waste comes from Lucas Heights many believe that it should be kept there, at least until a final disposal solution is established.
‘Surely care of Earth and reverence for our land should be our underlying principles’, concluded Sr Monica.
‘Merchants of Death’: Profiteering from the arms trade
Sisters of St Joseph January 2018 , The Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, the religious Congregation founded by St Mary MacKillop, challenges the newly released plan of the Federal Government to increase weapons exports.
“Weapons are designed to kill and maim human beings,” said the Congregational Leader, Sister Monica Cavanagh. “We completely reject the philosophy which finds it acceptable to boost industry, create jobs, increase exports and protect local manufacturing via the arms trade.”
“We agree with Pope Francis that those who seek to benefit from trading in weapons are ‘merchants of death’,” she concluded.
Six major issues concern the sisters:
- The “mutually assured destruction” of the last forty years cannot guarantee deterrence in the future. Violence is escalating in proportion to the availability and destructive effect of new weapons.
- There is enormous difference between a defence manufacturing industry to protect Australia and the development of a weapons export industry.
- It is a matter of great concern and sorrow that Australia’s overseas aid has dropped to its lowest level ever, while at the same time plans are underway to increase the sale of weapons.
- The government’s assurances about establishing and maintaining “controls” over which nations access Australian weapons lack detail on methods of oversight and on how such controls would be policed.
- Australian capacity to deal in arms ethically is not evident in Australian history. Australia continued to provide military hardware and training to Indonesia between 1975 and 1999 during the occupation of East Timor in which up to 182,000 people died violently.
- Australia’s considerable design and production expertise would be better used in projects which promote peace among nations and care of earth, particularly in places and electorates where people lack employment opportunities.
The Sisters of St Joseph call on the Australian government to prioritise education, health and good governance initiatives among the deprived peoples and nations of the world, rather than spending billions of Australian people’s dollars on producing and exporting the means of destruction.
“We strongly urge the government to resist the hypocrisy of talking about peace while financing and supporting the arms trade,” Sister Monica reflected. “Over 90% of those who die in war zones are not soldiers, but civilians, including so many of the most defenceless humans – the children. It is reprehensible for government and industry authorities to pursue financial and electoral gain through promoting the weapons which enable the escalation of violence.”
A band of right-wing religious politicians are stopping climate action in Australia
The fact is that the great majority of religious leaders – from the Pope to the Dalai Lama – share Pickard’s views about the urgency of addressing climate change.
Yet in this country the resistance to any meaningful action to ameliorate climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is led to a substantial degree by those politicians who claim Christian faith.
Last year 350.org released a list of the most implacable opponents to climate change action. At or near the top of the list were the following names: Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, Kevin Andrews, Cory Bernardi, Eric Abetz, George Christensen and Zed Seselja. These politicians are bound together by their strong and frequently touted religious belief.
How the religious right stall climate action, While most religious leaders accept climate change, the Christian right in Australia and the US make scepticism a tenet of their politics. Saturday Paper, By Mike Seccombe. 26 Aug 17 It has been more than three years now since Stephen Pickard penned his letter to the religious believers among our federal parliamentarians, arguing the case for action on climate change. Continue reading
Australia’s religious leaders unite to oppose Adani coal mine expansion
The Adani coalmine will hasten a climate catastrophe. As faith leaders, we must act
A Buddhist leader has told environment minister Josh Frydenberg he would stand in front of machinery if digging started. All people of faith should join him, Guardian, Jonathan Keren-Black and Tejopala Rawls, 23 Aug 17
Earlier in August, six faith leaders met Australia’s environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg. Our group included Bishop Philip Huggins, the president of the National Council of Churches, a Uniting Church reverend, a rabbi, a Catholic nun and an ordained Buddhist. This is not the start of a joke, but a polite and serious exchange.
It might seem that religion has little to do with the environment or energy. Yet each of us at the meeting wanted to raise a matter that, when we consider the deepest values of our respective traditions, is of grave moral concern: the proposed Adani coalmine. We were there to ask the minister to revoke its environmental licence.
The delegation reminded the minister that a number of faith leaders from across Australia wrote him an open letter about it on 5 May, to which he had not yet replied.
Around the world a great many people of faith are deeply concerned about the climate crisis. Continue reading
1.This month.
14 May Industrial Decarbonisation Summit
Sydney Get involved at eec.org.au/summit-registration
15- 16 May Sydney – EEC National Conference Efficiency Electrification Decarbonisation more https://eec.my.canva.site/eecnc24
The video on Palestine that got Yanis Varoufakis BANNED from Germany
Keep U.S. military expansion out of Australia
Petition EN5543 – Call for termination of the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement
Antinuclear 