Universal condemnation of backstabber Carr

From The Australian, 11 April 2014:

...Albert Dadon is a Melbourne Jewish lobbyist. He has sought to influence Australian prime ministers and cabinet ministers on both sides of politics. He counts Kevin Rudd as a friend and Tony Abbott as well. He briefly came to prominence for giving a job to Tim Mathieson, Gillard’s partner. For all these things he is unapologetic. And for Carr, he has polite yet powerful scorn.

“What he is trying to do is limit the rights of any members of the Jewish community to have any influence on the political process ...We have no apology to make to Mr Carr or to anyone for being part of the fabric of this society where we have a voice and influence in public debate. Everyone from car companies to cigarette companies to anything is trying to have some sort of influence and input in government. So why should we apologise for having a certain outcome by government?
There are no apologies to be made and the fact he is singling us out with a finger is reminiscent of a certain era when Jews were limited in having a voice in political debate. On that side, I am very uncomfortable with what Mr Carr is saying.’’

.. as Carr’s reflections from Diary of a Foreign Minister gain circulation, there is near uniform condemnation of his accusation, repeatedly put throughout the book, that a particularly conservative Melbourne Jewish lobby had excessive influence over Gillard and “Likudniks’’ — named after Israel’s ruling centre-right Likud party — in her office, and the ALP Victorian Right faction led by Shorten and Conroy.
Most observers have interpreted Carr’s claims as aimed at the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, which publishes the Australia Israel Review, and AIJAC chairman, Mark Leibler.

“He’s referring to me directly...But, you know, as flattered as I am, this is really a figment of his imagination.’’

In a statement released yesterday, AIJAC said Carr’s comments were sad and
bizarre.

“Mr Carr’s spurious allegations that the lobby held ‘extraordinary’ and ‘unhealthy’ sway over the views of former prime minister Julia Gillard and her office shows her a distinct lack of respect... Ms Gillard was an independent-thinking prime minister who is fully capable of coming to her own conclusions about optimum Australian foreign policies, as is Mr Carr.
“The fact that some of her conclusions on promoting Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation were different from Carr’s is no more evidence that she was under the influence of ‘unhealthy’ pro-Israeli lobbying than Carr’s views are evidence that he is under the ‘sway’ of Australia’s several pro-Palestinian lobby groups.”

The same point was made by Robert Goot, the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

“These claims border on conspiracy theories which make for salacious gossip and help to sell books, but bear no relationship to reality... Bob Carr’s suggestion that there has been anything untoward in the way Jewish community organisations have conducted their advocacy, as we do openly in a democracy like many other organisations, including Palestinian advocacy groups, is as bizarre as it is misconceived.’’

[Michael] Danby [Member for Melbourne Ports], who is Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel...believes Carr’s views are less representative of political miscalculations than anti-Israel bigotry.

“No lobby in Australia, I understand, has that kind of influence. It’s laughable..."

... Carr’s Diary of a Foreign Minister recalls how these divisions played out in November 2012, when the Australian government was confronted with how to vote on a UN resolution to elevate Palestine to observer state status.
Carr was frustrated and gloomy. ...Carr was overruled on issuing a statement on “condemning” Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and Gillard rejected his idea of supporting an Egyptian proposal for a nuclear-free Middle East. And she was steadfast in rejecting Carr’s plea not to oppose the UN motion on Palestine status. 
Carr, having been NSW premier for a decade, opposition leader for seven years prior and schooled in the winner-take-all Tammany Hall-style NSW Right political machine, did what he had done all his life: the numbers. He decided to roll the prime minister. 
The culmination of the campaign came in the cabinet room on November 26, 2012. The day before, Conroy had told Carr, sitting next to him in the Senate, that his position on Palestine was “monstrous, a betrayal, a deceit”. There was talk of binding the national Right faction behind Gillard’s position. “I think you might find the NSW Right takes a different view,” Carr told Conroy.
Gillard opened the discussion in cabinet on Palestine observer status and asked Carr to “give an account of the pros and cons of the options”, he wrote in his diary. Gillard then asked for comments. One by one, ministers launched into Gillard and opposed her position. Nine in all spoke against Gillard.
It became a showdown between the Victorian Labor Right — critical to Gillard’s hold on the prime ministership — and the NSW Labor Right. These two groupings had rarely seen eye to eye, but on this occasion the NSW Right was joined by the Left’s Anthony Albanese, Martin Ferguson and Mark Butler, and the Right’s Simon Crean and Craig Emerson, the latter a staunch Gillard loyalist....
Only Shorten and Conroy spoke in support of Gillard.
The next morning, Carr woke just before dawn.
As the Labor caucus swelled with speculation a vote against Gillard could precipitate a leadership crisis, they met in her office. He told her she faced defeat in caucus unless she supported the motion to abstain on the UN vote. “I saw fear dance in her eyes,” Carr wrote. Gillard relented, knowing he had arrayed the numbers against her, and backed a caucus motion to abstain the UN vote.
Whatever the influence of the Melbourne Jewish lobby, or any other on caucus at the time, the falafel faction folded.

Bob Carr: self-indulgent narcissist, bigot, "dilettante", "laughing stock", "wanker and a tosser"

From the ABC, 10 April 2014, by political reporter Latika Bourke:

PHOTO: Bob Carr meets US secretary of state John Kerry in Washington last year (AFP: Paul Richards)

Labor MPs are rounding on Bob Carr, accusing the former foreign minister of "narcissism", "immaturity", "self-indulgence", and even "bigotry" following the publication of his memoirs.

The former Labor senator has launched his book Diary of a Foreign Minister, which details his life as Australia's top diplomat between 2012 and 2013.

Mr Carr says his account is a glimpse into how public policy is formed and details text exchanges between him and the former prime minister Julia Gillard as well as a Cabinet discussion on granting Palestine observer status at the United Nations.

Mr Carr supported the vote but Ms Gillard opposed it. She was rolled by her Cabinet on the decision and it was used against her by Labor MPs agitating for the return of Kevin Rudd.

Mr Carr also details his complaints about having to fly business instead of first class, airline food, and, in one instance, the lack of English subtitles on a German opera being screened during a flight.

...Labor MP Anthony Byrne says Mr Carr's book is a symbol of the worst of the Rudd-Gillard era.

"If you ever wanted an example of the narcissism, self indulgence and immaturity that ran through the Labor party during its six years in government, Bob Carr is it..." ...

Victorian Labor MP Michael Danby says Mr Carr's comments claiming the pro-Israel lobby enjoyed a disproportionate influence on foreign policy through the former prime minister’s office are "bigoted".

"No lobby in Australia I understand has that kind of influence. It’s laughable," Mr Danby told AM.

"But I suppose in the current climate, as George Brandis says, it's okay to be a bigot."

...Labor MP David Feeney says it is "unfortunate" that Mr Carr has decided to publish his 500-page diary.

"I have a view that the memoirs of politicians can often be an indulgence and I think on this occasion it probably falls into that category," Mr Feeney told the ABC's Capital Hill.

"I think Cabinet documents should remain confidential. I think that's the protocol. Bob has said that in his view there is a public interest issue here, that's obviously a view that he holds. I suppose I don't share it."

Carr ungrateful to Labor Party

Ms Gillard chose Mr Carr to fill the Senate vacancy left by Mark Arbib when he retired from politics in 2012. 

Mr Danby says the memoirs are a poor way for the former New South Wales premier to repay the Labor Party.

"Here's a bloke plucked from obscurity who was not working as a current politician, a former provincial premier, who dumps on Gillard and the former Labor government," he said.

"The Labor Party supported him all of his political life. How about a bit of decency? It’s a bit of ingratitude in my view."

He says it was a mistake to recruit Mr Carr back into politics, but Mr Feeney says he does not think it was Ms Gillard's "biggest mistake".

"I certainly wouldn't say it was her biggest mistake, no," he said.

But he says Mr Carr entered the federal parliament with expectations.

"Bob Carr was a person who came into this parliament with enormous momentum and we were all very very optimistic about what he would bring to us," he said.

When asked if Mr Carr lived up to expectations during his time as foreign minister, Mr Feeney said there had been "disappointment in some quarters".

Mr Carr's complaints about flying business and his boast of having more energy than "16 gladiators" have prompted newspaper headlines calling him a "wanker and a tosser".

...Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg says Mr Carr is a "dilettante" who has become the "laughing stock" of the Labor Party and risks damaging Australia’s relationships abroad.

Liberals break ranks against George Brandis race hate law

This report from SMH, 10 Apr 2014, by Heath Aston, names the following federal Liberal MPs as being opposed to the current draft of the Racial Discrimination Act review:

• Craig Laundy
• David Coleman
• John Alexander
• Jason Wood 
• Philip Ruddock and 
• Ken Wyatt

"I believe that we are potentially permitting acts that have no place in our wonderfully multicultural communities": Liberal MP Craig Laundy. Photo: Janie Barrett

A Liberal MP has signalled his readiness to cross the floor and vote against the Abbott government if controversial changes to the Racial Discrimination Act proceed in their proposed form.
Craig Laundy, whose electorate of Reid is one of Sydney’s most ethnically diverse, has written to Attorney-General George Brandis to outline his opposition to plans to water down race hate protections.
Mr Laundy has received 3000 individual pieces of correspondence from constituents on the government’s intentions for sections 18C and 18D of the Discrimination Act.
None was in support of Senator Brandis' ‘‘right to be a bigot’’ reforms, which he insisted were in defence of freedom of speech.

‘‘I believe we are potentially permitting acts that have no place in our wonderfully multicultural communities,’’ Mr Laundy said.

When asked whether he was prepared to become the first member of the Abbott government to cross the floor, he said he would vote with his ‘‘community and country’’ as his priorities.
‘‘I brought my integrity to Parliament and I intend to take it with me when I go," he said. "We [as politicians] should always seek to add value for our children, not take value away.
‘‘At the right time I will make a decision [on how to vote] based on what is put in front of me."
Mr Laundy received immediate support from fellow Liberal David Coleman, who held the nearby seat of Banks.

‘‘The Government has released an exposure draft of legislation which attempts to strike the balance between free speech and protection from racial discrimination...In my view, the exposure draft does not achieve this balance, and needs to be amended to provide greater protection against racial discrimination. I will be conveying this view to my colleagues.’’

John Alexander, whose seat of Bennelong had as many people who identified as ‘‘Chinese’’ as ‘‘Australian’’, was another Liberal rattled by the fierce public response to removing elements of the act that made it unlawful to "offend, insult or humiliate’’ someone based on their race or ethnicity.
The proposed law would instead offer protection for ‘‘vilification and intimidation’’, with sweeping exemptions provided in 18D.
Mr Alexander, who last week was reported as having considered pushing a petition around the backbench, met with Senator Brandis to express his opposition.
A spokesman for Victorian Liberal Jason Wood confirmed he was opposed to the changes as drafted. Veteran Liberal Philip Ruddock and Aboriginal MP Ken Wyatt had also expressed concern about the direction of the reforms.
Mr Laundy said his opposition was as personal as it was political after his 14-year-old daughter witnessed her friend being abused in public for wearing an Islamic hijab.
‘‘Over the duration of many discussions that I have had on this issue, not a single person has suggested to me that their right to free speech has been restricted by the act in its current form," he said.
"Consequently, I do not believe that the case for such far-reaching and potentially damaging changes has yet been made.’’
The Opposition has begun to capitalise on the heat in marginal electorates. On Wednesday, shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus held a town hall meeting in Dandenong, outer Melbourne, with Hugh de Krester of the Human Rights Law Centre. More meetings are planned in Sydney and Brisbane.
Last week, Senator Matt Thistlethwaite held a press conference in Chinese for Chinese-Australian media to stoke concern.

Twenty Chinese community groups have come together to fight Senator Brandis’ proposal.

The role of UNRWA in preparing their students for war

From the Center for Near East Policy Research Ltd, 4 Apr 2014, by By David Bedein, Director:

Following our center’s March 13 presentation at the British Parliament concerning UNRWA education, Sir Peter Luff, MP for Mid Worcestershire, asked for evidence that would support our center's finding that UNRWA is preparing its students for war.

In response to MP Luff’s request, The Center for Near East Policy Research asked Dr. Arnon Groiss, who holds a PHD in Islamic Studies from Princeton University and who has worked with the Arabic Language Service of the Voice of Israel Radio for the past 40 years, to consolidate documentation about how the "The Armed Struggle, Jihad and Martyrdom are taught in schools operated by UNRWA in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza"

This report is particularly important because the US this week allocated $2.5 million for UNRWA schools in Jerusalem, with no constraints.

Read full report in PDF, click here.

From the Report's Conclusion:

...From the above-given quotations taken from PA schoolbooks in current use by UNRWA, one could easily have a solid idea about the war education hundreds of thousands Palestinian schoolchildren get, apart from other alarming aspects of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish 
indoctrination that is detrimental to any chance of peace in the Middle East. That kind of "education" should cease immediately and it is the responsibility of UNRWA's democratic donor states to guarantee that. 

UNRWA: Encouraging Children to Engage in Acts of War 
The Armed Struggle, Jihad and Martyrdom in Schoolbooks Taught in UNRWA Schools in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza
By David Bedein, Director, Center for Near East Policy Research Ltd. 

Read full report in PDF, click here.

Bob Carr displays his truckload of sour grapes on the ABC

From the ABC, 10 Apr 2014:

Former foreign minister Bob [too-short-of-intellect-to-be-taken-seriously] Carr  has hit out at what he calls the "pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne"... in his new book, Diary of a Foreign Minister.

"I found it very frustrating that we couldn't issue, for example, a routine expression of concern about ...blocks of housing for Israeli citizens going up on land that everyone regards as part of the future Palestinian state ..." he said.

[How constructive, Bob: take a 100-year-old conflict, and issue "routine" pronouncements pre-judging the resolution. Why is that "routine"? And who is "everyone"? - SL]

...The national chairman of the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Mark Leibler, has rejected Mr Carr's claims as "a figment of his imagination".

"Just unpick for a moment what he's saying. He's talking about the Jewish lobby, he's talking about a difference of opinion between him and the prime minister," Mr Leibler told Lateline.

"Why can't they have a difference of opinion on a matter related to Israeli policy?

VIDEO: Mark Leibler rejects Carr's comments on lobby influence (Lateline)

"No, if there's a difference of opinion ... the prime minister has to be wrong because she's controlled by the Jewish lobby.

"How does the Jewish lobby control the prime minister? Through donations to the ALP and sending people to Israel. I mean, give me a break. Would anyone seriously accept that?"

Mr Leibler says he was able to raise concerns with Ms Gillard in the same way he raised them with Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Paul Keating, Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser.

"Julia Gillard is an independent-thinking woman. She can come to her own conclusions without being influenced by the Jewish lobby," he said.

He says the council's their lobbying of governments is no different to other community organisations.

"When we've got an issue which is a serious one, which needs to be raised, we haven't had problem in getting access to either ALP or Liberal prime ministers or foreign ministers and so it should be," he said.

"You know, any representative of a community organisation, if they've got something serious to say, they'll get the access."...

Other Carr complaints

Mr Carr's diary...includes tips on buying ties, complaints about business class flights which he likens to being locked in a slaving ship, and notes on the perfect breakfast and his obsessive exercise regime.

Faced with a choice, having to get off a plane and go straight to a meeting with the French foreign minister in Paris, I tell you what, I'd prefer first class any time.

Bob Carr

...Asked if he was being a "prima donna" because he complained about not flying first class...

"I think they [the complaints] add colour and authenticity to the book."

Asked "do you think that Australians will forgive you for presenting yourself as a dandy who thinks a lot about which tie he's going to wear?", Mr Carr replied:

"Yeah. I think self-parody and irony is the stuff of life. And I wanted the book to have that flavour....The flavour is me... Life is too short to be taken seriously...."

[...and also too short to take you seriously, Bob - SL]

Section 18C and unravelling the government’s ‘freedom agenda

From The Conversation, 1 April 2014, Elyse Methven, Associate Lecturer in Criminal Law at University of Technology, Sydney:

It is disingenuous for attorney-general George Brandis and the government to isolate Section 18C as the sole enemy to free speech. AAP/Stefan Postles

It is remarkable that the Abbott government has singled out one law, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as stifling free expression, but has remained silent on other more draconian laws that limit speech in Australia.

Last week, attorney-general George Brandis told parliament that people have the right to say things that other people find insulting, offensive or bigoted. Brandis said that under the government’s curiously named Freedom of Speech Bill, which will repeal Section 18C in its current form:

Never again in Australia will we have a situation in which a person may be taken to court for expressing a political opinion.

These statements are deceptive. If we are to embark upon an honest debate about free speech in Australia, politicians should shift their attention to the multitude of laws that curtail insulting or offensive speech. These laws are much broader than Section 18C. These laws also provide fewer defences, and are far more punitive.

Laws across Australia

For example, in New South Wales, it is a crime to use offensive language in or near, or within hearing from, a public place or a school. The maximum penalty is A$660. This law is not used sparingly. Last year, NSW police recorded more than 4000incidents of offensive language.

In the Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania andVictoria, it is a crime to sing obscene songs or ballads. And inQueensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria andWestern Australia, people are forbidden from using abusive, offensive or insulting words in a public place. The penalties range from a $6000 fine in Western Australia to six months’ imprisonment in Queensland.

The Western Australian law was used to curtail free expression in the recent March in March protests. Police reportedly askedjust one protestor to remove his “Fuck Tony Abbott” T-shirt or be arrested. While the shirt may be crude, its sentiment was patently political: dissatisfaction with the government and its policies.

What is ‘offensive’?

Brandis has said that prohibitions on speech should be framed “as narrowly and cautiously as possible". But offensive language crimes are framed broadly. The authoritative case of Worcester v Smith defines offensive as:

…such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust our outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.

There is no catalogue of words that are deemed offensive. Rather, offensive language is judged according to context and current community standards.

Police and the courts have tended to ignore racial epithets as constituting offensive language. Instead, they use offensive language crimes to target swear words uttered towards police, or in their presence (mainly fuck and c–t, or a combination of the two).

It doesn’t have to be this way. Offensive language crimes can theoretically target all manner of expressions, including verbal discrimination.

Community standards have shifted dramatically since Victorian times, when these laws were introduced to the colonies. The obscenities of today are not “four-letter words”, but instead slurs or stereotypes based on ethnicity, race, religion, sexuality and gender.

History has demonstrated the harms that can flow from verbal stereotypes and discrimination. But parliament has never provided credible evidence to justify criminal punishment for swearing. Instead, politicians cite imagined ideas about declining standards of civility and dirty words polluting clean spaces, or tainting the purity of women and children.

Offensive language crimes are disproportionately used against Indigenous Australians and other vulnerable groups. One such Indigenous Australian was Melissa Jane Couchy who, on one morning in September 2000, was wandering the streets of inner-city Brisbane. Couchy was intoxicated, homeless and disoriented. She was approached by a male police officer, who asked if she wanted to go to “the compound”.

Couchy told the officer: “Sarge, the compound is for fucking dogs.” A female police officer then asked Couchy to state her full name and address. Couchy replied “you fucking c–t”.

She was arrested for using insulting language and received a sentence of three weeks’ imprisonment. Her appeals to the Queensland Court of Appeal and to the High Court were rejected.

It is disingenuous, then, for the government to isolate Section 18C as the sole enemy to free speech. The government should stop heralding our rights to be bigots and instead be upfront about the state of free expression in this nation.

Free speech is not an absolute right in this country. As the High Court reiterated in 2013, we have only an implied freedom of political communication. It operates not as a “right”, but as a “restriction” on law-making.

The implied freedom of political communication is also somewhat ineffectual, as evidenced by laws under which thousands of Australians are fined or imprisoned for using offensive or insulting language each year. A genuine discussion about free speech should interrogate the operation of all offensive language laws, not just Section 18C.

Christians to EU: Israel is Our Safe Haven

From British Israel Group, Monday March 24 2014, by Ryan Jones:

Young, proud Arabic-speaking Israeli Christians demonstrate in Tel Aviv

Some 150 Israeli Arabic-speaking Christians on Sunday demonstrated outside the European Union mission in Tel Aviv, demanding that the international community stop nitpicking against Israel and start combatting the severe persecution of Christians everywhere else in the Middle East.

“Nations, organizations and international missions are quick to raise an accusing finger against Israel at every opportunity,” said Father Gabriel Nadaf, spiritual father of the Israeli Christian Recruitment Forum, which organized the rally.

Those same nations and organizations “don’t life a finger against the ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East,” the priest continued.

Father Nadaf went on to explain that from Syria to Egypt to Iraq to the Palestinian Authority, Christians on a daily basis suffer intimidation, harassment, desecration, coercion, torture, rape, physical abuse and murder. “According to the statistics, a Christian is murdered every five minutes [in the Middle East], and the Western world is silent about this,” he lamented.

In messages posted to its Facebook page during the Tel Aviv rally, the Israeli Christian Recruitment Forum insisted that “there is no place but Israel that is safe for Christians in the Middle East!”

While the rally was largely ignored by the mainstream Western media, the Israeli press took great interest, and forum spokesman Shadi Khalloul, a veteran of the IDF, was interviewed by various television and print media outlets.

Khalloul has spoken numerous times with Israel Today regarding the Christian awakening within Israel, and the bonds of brotherhood than bind local Christians to the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

Last month, Israel’s Knesset took the first important step toward recognizing local Christians as an independent minority separate from the Arab Muslims. Both Nadaf and Khalloul say this is necessary, since local Christians were here before the Arab Muslim conquest around 600 AD.

A growing number of Israelis, including lawmakers and opinion shapers, are likewise waking up to the strong Christian minority in their midst, a minority that has been long neglected, but which is now beginning to boldly take its place alongside the Jews.