John/Togs Tognolini

John/Togs Tognolini
March for Humanity August 3 2025. On the Sydney Harbour Bridge with 300,000 other people protesting against Israel's Genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.

Blog Archive

Popular Posts

Pageviews last month

Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts

Sunday, February 22, 2026

Israel’s Surveillance for Epstein, Isis Brides and Andrew got jailed | Scam of the week by Michael West

Click on Michael West'Prince Andrew finally gets arrested, or at least the story is being sold that way, and the media instantly does what it always does, turns a system story into a celebrity spectacle. Meanwhile, back in Australia, we have offshore property being marketed here, alleged illegal land sales dressed up as aspiration, and regulators who suddenly develop selective hearing. And then there are the ISIS brides, the perfect panic headline, deployed like a smoke bomb right when you might start asking harder questions about power, money, influence, and who really gets protected. This is Scam of the Week.' 

Support us ❤️ patreon.com/thewestreport Our Journalism 📰 michaelwest.com.au Merch 👕 https://lonelykidsclub.com/collection... Linktree 🌐 https://linktr.ee/michaelwestmedia.co...


Monday, May 13, 2024

Whistleblowers, flares and China scares | Scam of the Week


'Westy talks about the biggest scams of the week from the David McBride trial to the Chinese flare scare to the latest fossil fuel mega rort. Who will win?' 

Tommorow on Budget Day, David McBride will be sentaced for being a Whistle Blower. I have read his book The Nature of Honour and I will be reviewing it. I have followed McBride with his fight for justice and I will say this. David McBride is an Australian that makes you feel proud to be an Australian. Unlike the bastards he has taken on.

I support Westy and his team on Patreon if you can afford it, please do so. If you can’t please share.

John Tognolini

                                 David McBride

Whistleblowers, flares and China scares | Scam of the Week 

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Back to the point of departure by John Pilger


John Pilger

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger reflects on the idea of a journey, and wonders, like TS Eliot, if the point of travelling is also to find out where you came from. However, the unsuspected and tragic can change everything.

TS Eliot wrote that the point of any journey was to find out where you came from. As I bore my bulging canvas bag to the wharf at Circular Quay, not far from where my Irish great-great-grandparents had landed in leg irons, I hoped the point of my journey would become clearer once my ship had sailed. The Bretagne was my ship; it was white with blue stripes along the side and had a graceful bow, having been built in Saint-Nazaire as a modest version of the mighty Normandie. Alas, long veins of rust showed, and the crew looked morose. A Greek company now owned it, and the previous day had decanted 600 Greek brides.

The brides had been married “by proxy” in Greece to men in Australia they had never met. It worked this way. Young Greek (and Italian) men emigrated to Australia in the postwar years to work in the outback or at night in factories. When the authorities realised an entire gender was missing, they encouraged young women in Greece to write to their bereft male compatriots on the other side of the world. This often resulted in a wedding with the groom present only in a photograph pinned to the wedding cake. When a bride ship docked, anxious men and women would hold up photographs to identify the wife or husband they had never laid eyes on. Unfortunately, some hearts would change during the month-long voyage, producing a certain anarchy on arrival.

My Australian generation filled these ships on the return voyage to Europe, squeezing into six-berth cabins below the Plimsoll line in order to reach that mystical place called OT (“over there”). On the wharf that May day, aged 22, I told my mother I would be back in a year or two. “You won’t be back,” she said. With departure delayed 12 hours because Captain Nick was missing, we sang our umpteenth “Auld Lang Syne”, and the beer and tears ran dry; and finally we steamed out into the Pacific. I thought I could see my father’s silhouette on the headland; someone flashed their headlights.

I have read about fellow expatriates who insist that, from a tender age, they longed for cultural betterment elsewhere. Clive James comes to mind. As the bride ship slid into its first trough of green ocean, and salt spray cascaded over those of us still looking back, I was smitten with what I thought was seasickness but was really homesickness; rather like some tropical maladies, it recurs all your life and there is no cure.

Having made it to Singapore, Captain Nick missed, perhaps literally, the next port (Colombo) for reasons unexplained. As we crossed the Indian Ocean, with fresh water rationed for reasons unexplained, the horizon became a see-sawing line etched in my vision. The tiny, always empty dance floor remained at an angle and the Italian band were to be found at the rails, lime-green of pallor. Affordable alcohol ran dry for reasons unexplained, with the exception of sweet vermouth. Entertainment was provided by a fight between a Greek officer, known as Matinee Idol, and a New Zealander who had thrown him into the ship’s minuscule pool when we crossed the Equator. I interviewed a sheepshearer who was going home to Greece. When the interview was published, the headline asked, “Is this the shortest shearer in Australia?”

Then, one morning, there were red cliffs and, beyond, the Suez Canal. At Aden, I paid £12 for a Hermes Baby typewriter, which accompanied me to places of upheaval for 30 years, minus only the letter “m”. When we landed at Genoa, I fell to the ground. Two years later, the bride ship blew up without loss of life, for reasons unexplained.

The journey taught me how immense the world is, and I remain in awe at the sheer magic of a flight that covers the same 13,000 miles in a day and a night. That said, when the pilot flying a cargo of rifles, ammunition, stockfish and me into the Biafran War at night bellowed, as we approached the ghostly outline of a dirt road littered with the wreckage of aircraft, “Turn the fucking lights on, so I know where to put this thing!”, I was also in awe at my own fragility and fear. Mind you, the art deco piano bar flying across the United States was no less surreal. You can take a shower on the new Airbus A380, after your massage. The magic has become routine, as if the epic scale of things no longer applies.

That is not quite true, and the trigger for these reflections is a poignant story of a journey that was on the front pages recently, but briefly, having now succumbed to Gordon Brown’s perennial crisis and the venality of his associates. Yet it lingers on. A backpack and a vaccination card were found, and a laptop, and there was a photograph on the web of a container holding the few bodies found floating where Flight AF447 went down on 1 June.

I have flown by Air France from Paris to Rio, the fatal route in reverse, and I remember the place where the trade winds collide and the ocean is sucked into the sky and becomes a vortex of a kind. My aircraft then – a Boeing 707 – rose and fell, rose and fell. The fake starlight window in the ceiling provided reassurance.

The news of Flight AF447 is now all but forgotten. I read a dignified statement by Jane and Robin Bjoroy, the parents of Alexander, aged 11, who had visited them during his half-term holiday and was on his way back to school in Bristol on AF447. They said their son’s death was tragic. It certainly was that, and perhaps a reminder of the epic scale of things.


25 June 2009

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Aboriginal activist: `We must continue to mobilise' by Jim McIlroy, Brisbane

The defeat of the Howard government in the November 24 federal election was “a great victory for the Australian working class”, Sam Watson, leading Aboriginal activist and Queensland Senate candidate for the Socialist Alliance, told Green Left Weekly. “John Howard has been cast out, senior ministers defeated, and many Coalition seats now made marginal. This represents a realignment of working-class forces in the country”, Watson added.

“It also represents a win for the strong and successful campaign by the trade union movement against Howard’s hated Work Choices laws”, he said. “The unions were ably supported by groups like Socialist Alliance, which was able to attack the ruling class on wider issues, such as the rights of Aborigines and refugees, health, education, and civil liberties.

“There was a great deal at stake on November 24. The future of the country was in the balance. If Howard had won again, it would have been a disaster for all workers and oppressed people. But we can’t let it rest at this point. We need to ensure that the Rudd government delivers on its promises, where they are positive. And we need to pressure the new Labor government to go much further.

“We know that Kevin Rudd is soft on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, soft on climate change, and on Aboriginal issues. We, the working class of Australia, must continue to mobilise and confront the government to ensure that the journey which has been started is kept going to the end.

“This election has shifted the political goalposts to a new level. Ironically, the opinion polls tend to indicate that few voters actually changed their minds during the course of this year — despite the millions of dollars spent on TV advertising, the leaders jetting around the country, and so on, during the campaign.

“Ordinary people were open to engaging with smaller parties like SA, which was the experience reported to me by people around Queensland. Members of SA can be pleased with the campaign, and look forward to new challenges at the local, state and national level.”

On the question of Aboriginal rights, he said: “The most forward-thinking party was Socialist Alliance — the only one to talk about deaths in custody, opposition to the Northern Territory invasion and a treaty with the Aboriginal people. SA took up positions that many middle-of-the-road Aboriginal leaders went along with the Howard government on.

“The new Rudd government must understand that the living conditions of most Aboriginal people are totally unacceptable today. The key issues of under-resourcing of Aboriginal services must be fixed urgently. At all times, the government must work with Aboriginal people and communities, not intervening against them.

“The entire Australian economy and society is based on Aboriginal land. It is time to give back some of what was plundered from Aboriginal soil.

“SA always strongly opposed the Howard government’s conduct of Aboriginal affairs. As Aboriginal people, we cannot afford any longer to be guided by self-proclaimed Aboriginal leaders like Noel Pearson, who sat at the feet of John Howard and his ilk.

“The only way forward is for the new government to co-operatively engage with legitimate Aboriginal leaders and communities. The key issues for us are jobs, housing, proper education, health-care, clean drinking water, and adequate infrastructure. We need genuine, new pathways forward for our children.

“We urgently need a new national Aboriginal representative body. Most importantly, such a body needs to based on the full empowerment of the Aboriginal people.”


From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #735 12 December 2007.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

The Melbourne Age on John Pilger in his homeland

John Pilger

The following interview with John Pilger appeared in the Age on 28 September 2007...

John Pilger admits that he knows how to slow down, but has no intention whatsoever of doing so. The veteran investigative reporter, whose very name has become a signifier of dissenting opinion and controversy, is back in Australia - his land of birth and where he still spends several months each year during our summer - promoting his latest work, the Latin America documentary The War on Democracy.

As well as media interviews, a situation in which Pilger reveals that commanding voice, a keen intellect and a readiness to grapple with any query of his work, he's been participating in question-and-answer sessions with the public at advance cinema screenings. The latter he enjoys greatly.

"Really they're public meetings," Pilger observes. "It's like another element of political life is going on. They're a new kind of demonstration in a way."

The War on Democracy, a study of the political and economic situation in oil-rich Venezuela that expands to engage America's autocratic and often violent actions south of its border, is a first of sorts for Pilger. His traditional home has been television, notably with ITV in Britain, but this time he's debuting on cinema screens, a reflection of the public's growing faith in the film documentary as a harbinger of truth.

Pilger credits Michael Moore with helping popularise the documentary at the box office, a process that went mainstream in 2004 with Fahrenheit 9/11, a film that was in part inspired by Pilger's previous work, 2003's Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror. Having now made the transition himself, Pilger sees the difference between the two formats for him as being essentially logistical as opposed to artistic.

"I tried to work out what that difference was and it became a technical one. We had something of a luxury in having a two-camera shoot and a longer time to do a recce. I was conscious of the panorama of cinema and the sound of cinema, especially the music," explains Pilger, who by showing them the film persuaded the estate of R&B great Sam Cooke to license his 1964 civil rights anthem, A Change Is Gonna Come, for use over the final credits for a fraction of the fee it regularly commands.

The financing for The War on Democracy, which was reported and written by Pilger and co-directed by young English documentary-maker Chris Martin and Pilger, stems from an unlikely source: a former oil rigger turned sports rights packager turned West End theatre impresario named Michael Watt.

A New Zealander who told Pilger he wanted to do something that would make him proud, Watt, after what an initially suspicious Pilger describes as "a very interesting first encounter", then put up approximately 80 per cent of the budget - roughly $1 million ($A2.33 million). He then scrupulously kept his distance.

Pilger admits he's not suited to the amounts of meetings and negotiation required to get a film made (he elected to take a wage and is unconcerned about whether he'll see a profit).

But on screen in Venezuela, where in 2006 he spent several weeks in the underprivileged barrios and shadowing populist president Hugo Chavez, the work is undoubtedly his: strident, passionate and clearly focused on revealing the tentacles of conspiracy.

"One of the aims of the film was to correct what I perceive as the nonsense written and broadcast about Venezuela and Chavez. I wanted to show what he was like personally and how that's contrary to how he's portrayed," Pilger explains.

"It's easily the most democratic country in Latin America. It's not another Cuba, far from it."

There are several scenes in which Pilger didn't have the time to qualify what is suggested. A reference to Chavez getting limited power to rule by decree, bypassing parliament, is not as ominous as it sounds. In other scenes, Pilger asks simple questions: speaking to Chavez, he queries why so many citizens of a major oil producer still live in abject poverty - only to be met with wildly truncated bursts of rhetoric.

"His answer went on and became quite convoluted, describing a World Bank report on poverty and the areas that needed to be addressed, and then he talked about that while he'd been in power for nine years he'd spent half that time just trying to stay in power," says Pilger.

He hopes his audience will find the film entertaining. "When I say entertaining I don't mean entertaining for the family, I mean it has to win the attention of people and make them want to go through the journey with you," he says.

It must be said that Pilger himself - his performance, if you will - is quite entertaining. His brief reaction shots when interviewing a US State Department official are priceless, and with his Custer-like mane and raffish linen suit, he's the very picture of a distinguished foreign correspondent.

Sure, he's won Britain's Journalist of the Year twice, as well as International Reporter of the Year, but he's also sartorially gifted.

"The suit is old, but the tie is even older," laughs Pilger. "Genuine 1950s rayon - one of only four ties I own. Believe me, it's all a facade."

Monday, October 01, 2007

Howard Still Needs To Answer His Lie About Echoe Point Katoomba by Phil Doyle


Howard browns out again on the truth stakes when Katoomba resident and all round legend, John "Togs"Tognolini, host of the Katoomba Surf Club (Sundays from 8 on 89.1FM), tests Howard's claims in Parliament about about Big Kev Rudd being a re-appearance of his childhood experiences with the echo at the eponymouslynamed Echo Point. Made-in-Australia Mythbusting at it's best. Who is right? Howard or Togs? We report,you decide.
Click on the link to watch and feel free to share


Wednesday, August 22, 2007

World's #1 terrorist not welcome here! by Pip Hinman


Amid an unprecedented security hype in the lead-up to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, organisers of the “Stop Bush/Make Howard History” protest on September 8 are expecting thousands of anti-war, environment and workers’ rights activists to take to Sydney’s streets to give US President George Bush the kind of welcome he deserves. Green Left Weekly’s Pip Hinman spoke to Stop Bush Coalition spokesperson and Stop the War Coalition activist Alex Bainbridge.

Why should people join the protests and reject attempts to silence dissent?

This in an opportunity to tell Bush — the world’s number one terrorist and war criminal — what the majority of Australians think about the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush is responsible for the most significant war crime this century — more than 1 million Iraqis have died and a nation has been all but destroyed, its assets plundered and its people divided. Vast resources are being wasted on this ongoing destruction. In northern Iraq, up to 500 Kurds were killed in a roadside bombing on August 16. While it may be convenient for some to blame al Qaeda, others, such as Matt Howard, a former US marine on tour in Australia, says the increase in sectarian violence in Iraq is the direct result of the occupation forces stirring up trouble. War and occupation are wreaking havoc on Afghanistan. Senior SAS officers have revealed publicly on their return to Australia that they are having to fight and kill poor farmers suspected of being with the Taliban. All the polls show that Australians overwhelmingly oppose John Howard’s handling of the Iraq war, and more than half want the troops to come home. We all know what [defence minister] Brendan Nelson let slip the other day — that the war in Iraq is a war for oil. The APEC protests will demand the troops come home from Iraq and Afghanistan now.

Is there any evidence behind the claim that the APEC meeting will be a watershed on global strategies for dealing with the greenhouse problem?

Energy “security” is a big discussion at APEC, given that the world’s two worst climate change rogue states — the US and Australia — will be present. Their recent “recanting” of their notorious greenhouse scepticism is a tactical ploy. They are still working for big oil and the nuclear industry, and they are determined to keep those dirty and dangerous industries going despite climate scientists’ warnings about the impact of runaway climate change, caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels. The APEC energy ministers’ meeting in Darwin a few months back made it clear that the US and Australia are keen to secure fossil fuel supplies into the future. While there’s a profit to be made, and coal remains one of Australia’s biggest exports, the Howard government refuses to seriously tackle climate change. The other social and environmental disaster that will be discussed at APEC is nuclear energy. This will be presented as the alternative “clean fuel”, which most know is utter nonsense. Howard has already proven his willingness to sell Australian uranium, including to countries that are not signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, such as India. Howard is likely to announce that Australia will join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership — another dangerous White House project — which will only make it easier for Australian uranium to be sold overseas and will add to the pressure on Australia to “go nuclear” and take back the nuclear waste. The unavoidable consequences of nuclear energy are radioactive waste dumps foisted onto Indigenous custodians, a massive waste of water and a waste of financial resources that could be more usefully ploughed into the renewable energy sector.

Question: What has been the response to the new police powers? Has the security hype worked and will it keep people away from the protests?

Undoubtedly some people will be dissuaded from coming, but the NSW government and police may have gone too far with their security and terrorist hype. There is no need for special laws preventing protests; the police already have too much power. These new laws treat protesters like terrorists. Protests against injustices of all kinds have been a central part of Australia’s history and the right to protest is one of our most fundamental and basic democratic rights. Why is the state Labor government trying so hard to terrorise people into not exercising their conscience? Even Sydney high schools students are being threatened for trying to organise a walkout when Bush arrives in Sydney. The authorities’ fear of public opinion shows just how isolated our so-called leaders really are. We reject the notion that protesting against violence — wars and occupations and attacks on workers’ rights — means support for violence. The Maritime Union of Australia should be applauded for taking a stand in support of the right to organise peaceful protests and for pointing out that the real violence is coming from the likes of Bush and Howard.

Foreign minister Alexander Downer says that APEC will promote liberal economic policies that will be of benefit to both the Asia-Pacific rim countries and Australia and the US. Is he right?

APEC will be pushing the same neoliberal, deregulatory agenda that global capital aims for everywhere, because it helps the rich countries’ efforts to grab markets and resources from the poorer nations. Bush and Howard will certainly be pushing their neoliberal policies, while Third World countries are forced to manouevre to protect their economies. This bullying will send millions of poor farmers and workers into even greater misery and poverty. Workers in both the rich and the less-developed countries will face greater exploitation as labour laws and rights are slashed to allow for this greater exploitation by capital. In Australia, the Work Choices legislation is about shifting power in the workplace to the bosses, and severely limiting workers’ rights to organise for their own safety, decent wages and basic rights at work. In many other APEC countries, including China, the same approach is being taken. We want to show our solidarity with those workers overseas who are fighting the same battles as we are here. All those who support peace and democracy should make an effort to join us on the streets on September 8 for a peaceful protest against Bush and Howard. Millions worldwide have done the same when Bush visited their countries. Bush is on the skids at home, and we can help that slide. We also want to make Howard history, and warn any future ALP government that we will not stop until it too commits to immediately pulling all the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #721 22 August 2007.

Friday, May 25, 2007

How the 1967 referendum was won by Norm Dixon


May 27 marks the 40th anniversary of the overwhelming victory of the 1967 referendum, in which almost 91% of the Australian people voted to give the federal government the constitutional power to override the brutal, degrading racist laws of the states under which Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were tormented. The federal government now had the power to make specific laws in respect to the Indigenous people. The Australian people had sent a clear signal that it was time for Canberra to make laws, introduce programs and provide the necessary resources to end the racial oppression of Indigenous Australians.

In Canberra on the day of the anniversary, in an act of insulting hypocrisy, PM John Howard, who heads the most anti-Indigenous rights government that has ruled since the passage of the 1967 referendum and which has sought to roll back whatever gains the Indigenous people have achieved since, will preside over the main national commemorative event. He will be joined by Labor leader Kevin Rudd, who has embraced the so-called “tough love” anti-welfare views of conservative Indigenous identity Noel Pearson.

It is promised that the “honoured guests” of the ceremony will be the surviving members of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI), the national organisation that spearheaded the campaign for the referendum. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the real history of the referendum movement will emerge through the fog of official platitudes and cynical celebration: that the referendum, and its overwhelming endorsement by the Australian people, was the product of decades of determined political struggle by a “black-red alliance” — an Indigenous-led alliance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations with the left and labour movements.

Day of Mourning and Protest

This alliance had its origins in the upsurge in Aboriginal activism in the 1930s, particularly in south-eastern Australia. Independent Aboriginal-led organisations emerged to campaign for land rights, civil rights and specifically for the abolition of the dictatorial racist state Aboriginal “protection” Acts.

Founders of the Victorian-based Australian Aborigines League (AAL) and the NSW Aborigines Progressive Association (APA) were active trade unionists and some were members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA), a party that had campaigned for Indigenous people’s rights since its formation in 1920. Through the Depression, close links developed between CPA and Indigenous activists through trade union struggles and the activities of the Unemployed Workers Movement.

The 1930s upsurge culminated on January 26, 1938, with the APA-AAL-organised national all-Indigenous protest during the sesquicentenary anniversary of the British invasion. About 100 Aboriginal people defiantly gathered in Sydney’s Australian Hall (150 Elizabeth Street) to call for full citizen’s rights. They called the day a “Day of Mourning and Protest”, because, in the words of the organisers: “the 26th of January, 1938, is not a day of rejoicing for Australia’s Aborigines … This festival of 150 years of so-called ‘progress’ in Australia commemorates also 150 years of misery and degradation imposed upon the original native inhabitants by the white invaders of this country.”

APA President Jack Patten announced, “The conference is called to bring home to the white people of Australia the frightful conditions in which the native aborigines of this continent live. We ask for full citizen rights, including old age pensions, maternity bonus, relief work when unemployed, and the right to a full education for our children.” CPA member and NSW Labor Council vice-president Tom Wright organised trade union support for the protest and helped draft the manifesto the meeting issued, which the CPA printed and distributed around Australia.

Emergence of a national movement

During the 1940s and 1950s, a series of struggles put Aboriginal rights on the national political agenda, and exposed to the wider Australian population just how severe the federal and state authorities’ racist restrictions were on Indigenous people’s civil and political rights.

The most significant struggle of the 1940s was the epic 1946-49 Pilbara Aboriginal stock workers’ strike. In July 1944, WA CPA member Don McLeod reported to the CPA central committee that Indigenous leaders — including Clancy McKenna, Captain, Dougal, Dooley Bin Bin and Kitchener — were travelling from station to station preparing workers for action. On April 27, 1946, Aboriginal stock workers began walking off 20 stations. Police immediately arrested McKenna, Dooley and McLeod. Four-hundred strikers marched on the jail armed with crowbars and hammers, forcing McLeod’s release.

The Committee for the Defence of Native Rights (CDNR) in Perth, led by CPA members, held several successful meetings, including a 400-strong public meeting. The CDNR galvanised support from trade unions, women’s organisations, churches and local authorities, as well as winning national and international support.

In March 1949, as the strike approached its fourth year, police arrested 30 strikers. In response, Aboriginal workers walked off most of the region’s remaining stations, bringing the pastoral industry in the Pilbara to a halt. The Seamen’s Union in June banned the handling of wool from the stations. The CPA’s international connections resulted in the workers’ cause gaining publicity throughout the world, culminating in October 1949 with Soviet foreign minister Andrei Vishinksky denouncing Australia before the United Nations for flouting the Aboriginal workers’ human rights. As a result of the sustained pressure — it was Australia's longest continuous strike — the WA Native Affairs Department withdrew its support for the pastoralists.

In the Northern Territory in the late ‘40s, the CPA-led North Australian Workers Union (NAWU) campaigned for equal wages for Aboriginal pastoral workers and backed strikes by Aboriginal workers living in Darwin’s apartheid-like “townships” — the Berrimah and Bagot compounds.

Aboriginal NAWU organiser and communist Joe McGinness attended the 1951 Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Congress seeking support. NT and WA CPA activists collaborated with their comrades in the capital cities and in other states, as well as with existing and new Aboriginal rights organisations. More than 30 unions expressed solidarity with the NAWU, and financial support was provided by state and federal unions, trades and labour councils and the ACTU.

As a 1962 ASIO document moaned: “the CPA press gave much publicity to every incident involving the aboriginal people … This publicity included allegations of colour prejudice; appeals to trade unions to help aborigines both financially and politically; protests at evictions of aborigines from houses; ‘historical’ articles; attacks on governments for implementing the policy of ‘full rights’ too slowly; allegations that “wealthy squatters, pastoral companies and mining monopolists are furious at the advances made towards equal pay, education and other reforms; … approval of strikes by aboriginals; and the building, among Communist-controlled trade unions like the Waterside Workers’ Federation, the Miners’ Federation and the Seamen’s Union, of a campaign for full citizenship rights for all aborigines.”

Referendum campaign

By the late 1950s, there were broad-based Aboriginal rights support organisations in most states. A number of key Indigenous leaders were members of the CPA and/or militant trade unionists. These included Faith Bandler, wharfie Chicka Dixon and building worker Ray Peckham, who were active in the Australian Aboriginal Fellowship (AAF) formed in Sydney in 1956, and Kath Walker (better known as Oodgeroo Noonuccal) and Gladys O’Shane from Queensland. Joe McGinness, now a wharfie in Cairns, was a leader of the north Queensland Indigenous rights movement (in 1961, McGinness became the president of FCAATSI).

Non-Indigenous communists were also leading members in many state organisations, notably Barry Christophers and Shirley Andrews in Victoria and Len Fox in Sydney, together with left-wing Labor Party members, such as MPs Les Haylen and Gordon Bryant, as well as more conservative liberals and Christians. CPA-led or -influenced trades unions, including the Waterside Workers Federation, the Builders Labourers Federation and Building Workers Industrial Union, provided invaluable support.

The actual launch of what was to become the referendum campaign was a packed meeting in Sydney Town Hall on April 29, 1957, where the AAF launched a mass petition drive calling on the federal government to hold a referendum to delete discriminatory clauses from the constitution and to take over the states’ control of Aboriginal affairs. One of the key architects of the petition, along with Bandler, AAF president Bert Groves and famed radical Jessie Street, was Christian Jollie-Smith, a barrister and a founding member of the CPA.

The formation of FCAATSI at a conference of representatives of eight state-based Aboriginal rights and welfare organisations in Adelaide in January 1958 boosted the struggle nationally. FCAATSI adopted the AAF’s petition. Already thousands of signatures had been collected. In October 1962, another big meeting, this time organised by FCAATSI, “relaunched” the petition. Ninety-four separate petitions — 103,000 signatures — had already been presented in federal parliament. Shirley Andrews was the national coordinator of the petition drive. Campaign committees were set up in each federal electorate.

By 1965, the campaign had the support of the ACTU and the Australian Council of Churches. The presentation of petitions by local MPs was now daily (even PM Robert Menzies had to table one from his constituents). The pressure was such that Menzies agreed to meet a delegation of Indigenous FCAATSI leaders. Following the meeting, the PM offered the delegates drinks. Kath Walker bluntly told him, “You know, Prime Minister, where I come from, you would be put in jail for this [offering booze to an Aborigine]”.

Nevertheless, Menzies and then Harold Holt continued to resist holding a referendum, in particular on amending the key section 51 to allow the federal government to make special laws for Indigenous people, and to override state laws.

Between 1965 and 1967, even as the mass petition drive gathered pace, the Indigenous rights movement continued to mobilise. Two now historic struggles undoubtedly helped tip mass support in favour of Indigenous rights to such a degree that the government could no longer ignore the referendum demand.

The first were the “Freedom Rides” through rural NSW beginning in February 1965, organised by Sydney University’s Student Action For Aborigines (SAFA). About a quarter of the white members of SAFA who joined SAFA president Charles Perkins on the historic trip were young CPA members. The action exposed the continued segregation and the appalling living conditions under which Indigenous people lived, in shanty towns and on reserves and missions, in country towns in the “deep north” of NSW. The trip was filmed by a TV camera crew and the graphic scenes of apartheid-like segregation and racist violence stunned the country.

The second was the NT Aboriginal workers’ historic “walk-offs” in June 1966, led by the Gurindji people. The workers accepted the assistance of the NT Council for Aboriginal Rights (NTCAR), in which Communists George Gibbs and Brian Manning were leading members. Gibbs was secretary of the NAWU’s militant wharfies’ section, whose executive had a CPA majority. Manning was also a wharfie. Renowned author and CPA member Frank Hardy chronicled the event in his book The Unlucky Australians.

The CPA and left-wing unions sponsored a speaking tour of the southern capitals in October 1966 by Dexter Daniels, an NTCAR leader and NAWU organiser, and Mundanganna (Lupgna Giari), a Gurindji strike leader. FCAATSI organised a national campaign in support of the strikers.

In March 1967, the Gurindji moved en masse to the centre of their land, Dagu Ragu, or Wattie Creek. With the help of Hardy, the workers drafted a petition to the governor-general for the return of most of the Wave Hill pastoral lease, which was in the hands of the giant British corporation Vestey’s. When the federal government offered a lousy eight square miles for a settlement, the Gurindji continued their land occupation. They were still there in 1972, when the Gough Whitlam Labor government was elected with a promise to legislate in favour of land rights, and a small land grant was finally given to the Gurindji.

On March 1, 1967, PM Holt finally relented and introduced a bill to change the constitution by referendum to repeal section 127 (which excluded Aborigines from being counted in the census) and to amend section 51. On May 27, the referendum passed with a massive overall 90.77% majority, and a majority in all states. FCAATSI’s Gordon Bryant concluded the day after: “The vote is an overwhelming endorsement of the view that it is time for material action. The government cannot hide behind constitutional inhibitions, nor can it hide behind a faith in public apathy. This vote represents a great national demand for action.”

That historic indication of the Australian people’s support for equality did not come from nowhere. It was the culmination of decades of hard-fought mass struggles by Indigenous people, their organisations and their allies — with communists, black and white, playing a leading role at every stage — which swung public opinion and laid the groundwork for the emergence of a new phase of independent Indigenous political activity in the 1970s, and to this day.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

London Cartoonist Steve Bell Draw's Howard As A Fat, Bald, Racist Gronk by John/Togs Tognolini





The Evil Dwarf is not fat and he has some hair. Who's the freak in the suit?

Steve Bell is a great cartoonist.

John/Togs Tognolini

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Mourning A Secret Australia by John Pilger

In a column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes another 'day of mourning' for the first inhabitants of his homeland, Australia, which for many whites remains a secret country behind the neo-conservative bluster of John Howard's government.

[Redfern The Block]

How many days of mourning have I attended? Vivid in the memory are wreaths thrown on to Sydney Harbour, and men in crumpled hats and women in loose frocks standing on foreshores where their forebears saw the first ships carrying white men. On 14 February, there was a day of mourning for T J Hickey, an Aboriginal boy who was chased by police three years ago and ended up impaled on a spiked iron fence in The Block, a ghetto within sight of Sydney’s banks and corporate towers. Commemorative silences were held for TJ and his violent death was likened to Australia’s many Aboriginal deaths in custody, such as that of Mulrunji Doomadgee on Palm Island.

Palm Island is one of the most beautiful on the Great Barrier Reef, yet few outsiders take the short flight from Townsville. Established in 1918 as a detention camp for Aboriginal men, women and children convicted of the crimes of homelessness, rebelliousness and drunkenness, it has changed mostly on the surface. When I first went there in 1980, an epidemic of gastroenteritis was deemed life-threatening. Two years later, researchers discovered in the records of the Queensland Health Department that Aboriginal deaths from common, infectious diseases were up to 300 times higher than the white average, and the highest in the world. In the cemetery, overlooking waves breaking gently on the coral reef, many of the headstones bear the names of children.

On 26 January last, a date known as Australia Day by whites celebrating their settlement (Aborigines call it Invasion Day), something very unusual happened. It was announced that a police sergeant, Chris Hurley, would be charged with the manslaughter of Mulrunji Doomadgee. In 2004, Hurley arrested Mulrunji for swearing and drunkenness; once in police custody, Mulrunji had his liver torn in two.

These actions of Sergeant Hurley, said the deputy coroner, caused the fatal injuries. However, Queensland’s director of public prosecutions decided not to lay charges. This is standard practice. In 1989, a royal commission inquired into more than 100 deaths in custody, many of them demonstrably murder or manslaughter. I had no conception, wrote the chief commissioner, Elliott Johnston, of the degree of . . . abuse of personal power, utter paternalism, open contempt and total indifference with which so many Aboriginal people were visited on a day-to-day basis.

So spoke the voice of Australian liberalism and justice. Of the 339 recommendations made by the royal commission, not one called for criminal charges. The prosecution of Sergeant Hurley is the first of its kind, and it happened only because the Queensland government was virtually dragooned into seeking the independent opinion of a retired chief justice of New South Wales.

Of all the great Australian pastimes, silence is currently the most popular. This is largely due to a fear of speaking out, described in a rare book, Silencing Dissent, by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison. The authors fellow Australian academics and writers say little if anything publicly that might upset the all-controlling Bushites of John Howard’s government and its inspectorate in the media. Trial by media of Australia’s domestic victims, be they Aboriginal or Muslim, is standard practice. Officially approved platitudes pass as news and commentary, along with weary stereotypes of much of humanity, from heroic Aussie cricketers to whingeing Poms and mad mullahs. True Australian heroes go unrecognised, such as Arthur Murray, a former Aboriginal union organiser who has fought unremittingly for 25 years for justice for his son Eddie, killed in police custody, and for all his people. Few white Australians will have heard of Arthur, whose dignity and courage evoke a secret history, described by the historian Henry Reynolds as the embarrassment of bloodied billabongs (lakes).

Australian values and national pride are political distractions of the moment in a nation witlessly at war in Iraq and Afghanistan a nation with up to 43 per cent youth unemployment at home and, in some places, the majority of its black youths in custody.

Australian patriotism, says the cultural historian Tony Moore, should be first and foremost based on taking the piss, of laughing, not just at one’s self but at the powerful He calls this bullshit detection. Terrific idea, Tony, but I suggest you first run it by Arthur Murray and the people of The Block and Palm Island; for until we whites give back to black Australians their nationhood, we can never claim our own.

15 Feb 2007

Monday, February 12, 2007

'Daily Terror' Bags Proposed Chavez Visit by Kerry Smith

[Hugo Chavez at the United Nations in 2006]

The February 6 Sydney Daily Telegraph reported that “Australians yet to establish a view on the Venezuelan president will have the opportunity to do so in person if the organisers of an online petition inviting him to visit get their way”.

The Murdoch-owned tabloid, often referred to as the “Daily Terror” for its rabid right-wing sensationalism, was referring to the campaign initiated by the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network to gather signatures to petition Venezuelan socialist President Hugo Chavez to make a speaking tour of Australia.

Of course, the Tele’s article was not simply a factual report but an attack on the campaign, made clear by its headline “Dictator in waiting, beloved of the left” and its introductory paragraph: “With his loathing of the Bush administration and regular appearances in Human Rights Watch reports, Hugo Chavez is variously described as a pin-up boy for the Left or a power-crazed bully whose increasingly autocratic actions represent a danger to his country.”

The Tele’s owner and its editor obviously hold the latter view.

While noting that “Lisa Macdonald, from the Australian Venezuela Solidarity Network, which organised it, says more than 2000 people have become signatories”, the Tele sought to present the signature campaign as some sort of conspiratorial exercise that it was “exposing” to an unsuspecting public.

Thus, the Tele’s readers were told that a “quick glance through the names of those who signed turns up a notable fact: many of those who want Chavez here were” — shock, horror! — “aghast after the last federal election when the Howard government was handed control in both the House of Representatives and the Senate”.

Given that only 46.7% of Australia’s 12,354,983 voters cast a first preference vote for John Howard’s Liberal-National Coalition in the 2004 federal election, it would not be very difficult for anyone to get signatures for just about any public petition from those who “were aghast” at the result of that election.

In an effort to demonstrate that even the Tele tips its hat to the corporate media’s phoney provision of “balanced” coverage, the article quoted comments from some petition signers.

“He’s a very important rallying point for the new wave of socialist leaders across the Latin American sector”, Aboriginal leader Sam Watson was quoted as saying. “The Bush administration, with its enormous sense of self-importance and power, needs to be reminded that it’s not going to be allowed to dominate the world without being challenged.”

The Tele reprted that “Greens MP Sylvia Hale said it was important for Australians to be exposed to a number of political viewpoints: ‘Dick Cheney is coming to Australia next week — I’m not opposed to that — and similarly, if Hugo Chavez comes here, people should be able to hear what he’s got to say.’”

Clearly, the Tele doesn’t agree.

If you would like to hear what Chavez has to say, sign the petition. The text is available at the AVSN website, .

From: Australian News, Green Left Weekly issue #698 14 February 2007.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

David Hicks: A Case of Abandoned Civil Rights by Colin Mitchell



Green Left Weekly 2 February 2007


After five years of incarceration at Guantanamo Bay without trial, it is increasingly clear that David Hicks has committed no serious crime and that he is no threat. Yet, he is being held in a prison camp, often in solitary confinement, subjected to endless interrogations and physical and mental abuse to try and break his resistance to a guilty plea. Hicks is now in such a state that he cannot even bear to talk to his father on the phone.


The Bush administration desperately needs to obtain prosecutions from the Guantanamo Bay prison to “justify” the existence of what has become a political liability for Washington. It has been condemned around the world and within the US for its blatant trashing of fundamental human rights and principles of justice. The Australian government is more than willing to offer up Hicks for the purpose.

Colin Mitchell from Civil Rights Defence caught up with Hicks’s Australian lawyer, David McLeod, at his Adelaide office before he left to visit Hicks in Guantanamo Bay at the end of January.

Has David committed any crime?

He has not committed any offence under Australian law or international law.

Why do you think David has been chosen to be prosecuted?

There has been pressure from the Australian government to have him dealt with by the US because he cannot be prosecuted under Australian law, and the government wants David to answer for his conduct.

What should happen to David?

He should be released back to Australia without further ado. The reason is that after five years in prison, irrespective of what he is alleged to have done, or not done, it is now no longer possible for someone in his circumstances to receive a fair trial.

It is not just me saying that. Lex Lasry QC, the Law Council, the special observer appointed by the Law Council, the American Bar Association and various other leading legal and related institutional organisations have said the same.

“Justice delayed is justice denied” — the reason for that maxim is that the longer it takes to try someone, the less reliable memories become, the less fresh evidence becomes and therefore the less reliable it all becomes. Witnesses forget and witnesses can manufacture evidence over time. There are a whole lot of reasons that learned scholars have written about to the effect that if you are going to be tried you must be tried quickly for offences to get any chance of a credible version of events being presented to the decision-maker.

What should happen to him in Australia?

Nothing. By the government’s own admission he has not committed any offence under Australian law so why should anything happen to him? That said, Hicks’s legal team has said to the government that if it intervenes to bring him home we would not oppose him being put under a control order for 12 months if this was something which was likely to influence it to act to bring him home.

Would you disapprove of any attempt to prevent David from talking to the media about his story?

There would be no lawful way that the government could restrict that, so it is a matter for David.

Are the military commissions set up to find the defendants guilty?

Yes, absolutely. And the new rules for the commissions are no better. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence, but US President George Bush has said David is one of the worst of the worst and PM Howard has said he has committed serious offences. And what better example of the lack of presumption of innocence was the chief prosecutor [Colonel Morris Davis’s] recent outrageous demonisation of David and his public airing of the prosecution case.

There is supposed to be a right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. But under this system the prosecution does not have to produce witnesses for security reasons; the prosecutor can introduce paper evidence only, including hearsay evidence, which prevents the defence from cross-examining any witnesses.

There is supposed to be a ban on evidence obtained by torture, but it is their definition of torture. Evidence obtained under duress is admissible, including evidence obtained by inhumane, cruel and degrading methods. The rules allow the prosecutor to admit evidence obtained by torture by keeping secret the sources of the evidence and the methods by which it was obtained.

Why has Melbourne psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen been refused permission to see David?

The refusal, by the US, suggests an unwillingness to reveal David’s true mental state to the world.

What do you think of foreign minister Alexander Downer’s view that David’s mental health is reportedly ok?

The basis on which Downer made his views known was outrageous. A public affairs officer from the US embassy had been sent to Guantanamo Bay. A meeting was set up at the officer’s request: it lasted about three minutes. David refused to speak to the officer, and on this basis the officer reported that David was fine. But the very fact that David did not speak suggests that his mental state is not good. Earlier, he did not speak to his father on the phone. He has also refused to see Australian consular officials.

David has twice refused to plead guilty. Do you think he will now be forced to plead guilty in a plea bargain?

There are currently no charges to plea bargain on. [Charges were finally laid against Hicks on February 3.] Formerly the attorney-general would not call for David’s immediate return because David had been charged. Now he is not charged. So, by that logic, this is the opportunity for Australia to demand his return like Britain and the other countries have demanded the return of their citizens. But the attorney-general now says that we must wait for new charges to be laid!

The difference between plea bargains and the situation in Guantanamo is that in Australia plea bargains are made at the beginning of the court process. At Guantanamo Bay, David has been incarcerated for five years without trial and subjected to repeated interrogations. A plea bargain is not appropriate under circumstances where he is under mental and physical pressure. It is unconscionable for the government to take advantage of David’s situation to suggest he plea bargain now.

Do you think Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and other MPs have committed a crime in the way they have abandoned Hicks? Can they be prosecuted?

Alastair Nicholson, a former chief justice, and five other eminent Australian legal figures recently produced a document, called a legal opinion, which concluded that the military commissions violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and would contravene the standards for a fair trial under Australian law. According to the document, that would mean that to counsel or urge a trial to take place under the military commissions would constitute a war crime under the Australian criminal code.

Also we, David’s legal team, are currently challenging the Commonwealth government, Ruddock and Downer in the Federal Court on behalf of David over the government’s refusal to demand David’s return to Australia. The case, due to be heard on February 26, accuses the government of violating the constitution by permitting an Australian citizen to be punished unlawfully because Hicks has not violated any law of Australia or the municipal law of the US.

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #697 7 February 2007.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Cruelty and xenophobia shame and stir the 'lucky country' by John Pilger

Green Left Weekly 19 January 2007



The Australian writer Donald Horne meant the title of his celebrated book, The Lucky Country, as irony. “Australia is a lucky country run by second-rate people who share its luck”, he lamented in 1964, describing much of the Australian elite as unfailingly unoriginal, race-obsessed and in thrall to imperial power and its wars.

From Britain’s 19th century opium adventures to Washington’s current travesty in Iraq, Australians have been sent to fight faraway people with whom they have no quarrel and who offer no threat of invasion. Growing up here, I was assured this was a “sacred tradition”.

But then another Australia was “discovered”. The only war-dead Australians had never mourned were found right under their noses - those of a remarkable indigenous people who had owned and cared for this ancient land for thousands of years, then fought and died in its defence when the British invaded. In a land littered with cenotaphs, not one honoured them. For many whites, the awakening was rude; for others it was thrilling.

In the 1970s, thanks largely to the brief, brave and subverted Labor government of Gough Whitlam, the universities opened their studies to these heresies and their gates to a society Mark Twain once identified as “almost entirely populated by the lower orders”.

A secret history revealed that long before the rest of the Western world, Australian working people had fought for and won a minimum wage, an eight-hour working day, pensions, child benefits and the vote for women. And now there was an astonishing ethnic diversity; and it had happened as if by default; there simply were not enough Britons and “blue-eyed Balts” who wanted to come.

Australia is not often news, cricket and bushfires aside. That is a pity, because the regression of this social democracy into a state of fabricated fear and xenophobia is an object lesson for all societies claiming to be free.

In power for more than a decade, the Liberal prime minister, John Howard, comes from the outer reaches of Australia’s “neocons”. In 1988, he announced that a future government led by him would pursue a “One Australia Policy”, a forerunner to Pauline Hanson’s infamous One Nation party, whose targets were black Australians and immigrants.

Howard’s targets have been similar. One of his first acts as prime minister was to cut $400 million from the Aboriginal affairs budget. “Political correctness”, he said, “has gone too far”.

Today, black Australians have one of the lowest life expectancies in the world, and their health is the worst in the world. An entirely preventable disease, trachoma - beaten in many poor countries - still blinds them because of appalling living conditions. The impoverishment of black communities, which I have seen change little over the years, was described in 2006 by Save the Children as “some of the worst we have seen in our work all around the world”.

Instead of a political respect in the form of a national lands rights law, a war of legal attrition has been waged against the Aborigines; and the epidemics and black suicides continue.

Howard rejoices in his promotion of “Australian values” - a very Australian sycophancy to the sugared “values” of foreign (US) power. The darling of a group of white supremacists who buzz around the Murdoch-dominated press and radio talk-back hosts, the prime minister has used acolytes to attack the “black armband view of history”, as if the mass killing and resistance of Indigenous Australians did not happen.

The fine historian, Henry Reynolds, author of The Other Side of the Frontier, has been thoroughly smeared, along with other revisionists. In 2005, Andrew Jaspan, a Briton newly appointed editor of the Melbourne Age, was subjected to a vicious neocon campaign that accused him of “reducing” the Age to “another (liberal) Guardian”.

Flag-waving and an unctuous hand-on-heart jingoism about which sceptical Australians once felt a healthy ambivalence are now standard features at sporting and other public events. These serve to prepare Australians for renewed militarism and war, as ordained by the Bush administration, and to cover attacks on Australia’s Muslim community.

Speak out and you may break a 2005 law of sedition meant to intimidate with the threat of imprisonment for up to seven years.

Once described in the media as George Bush’s “deputy sheriff”, Howard did not demur when Bush, on hearing this, promoted him to “sheriff for South-East Asia”. Like a mini-Blair, Howard has sent troops and federal police to the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Papua New Guinea and East Timor.

In newly independent East Timor, where Australian governments colluded with Indonesia’s 23-year bloody occupation, “regime change” was effectively executed last year with the resignation of the prime minister, Mari Alkatiri, who had the temerity to oppose Canberra’s one-sided exploitation of his country’s oil and gas resources.

However, it is one man, David Hicks, a spectacular loser in the new Australia, who now threatens Howard’s “lucky” facade. Hicks was found among the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and sold as bounty to the Americans by CIA-backed warlords. He has spent more than five years in Guantanamo Bay, including eight months in a cell with no sunlight. He has been tortured, and never charged with any crime.

Howard and his attorney-general, Philip Ruddock, have refused even to request Hicks’s repatriation, as is his constitutional right, because there are no Australian laws under which Hicks can be charged. Their cruelty is breathtaking.

A tenacious campaign by his father, Terry, has ignited a kind of public shame that is growing. This has happened before in Australia, such as the march of a million people across Sydney Harbour Bridge demanding justice for black Australians, and the courageous direct action by young people who forced the closure of notorious outback detention camps for illegal refugees, with their isolation cells, capsicum spray and beatings.

Asylum seekers caught in their leaking boats by the ever-vigilant Australian Defence Force are now incarcerated behind electric fences on tiny Christmas Island 1800 kilometres from the “lucky country”.

Howard faces no real opposition from the compliant Labor Party. The trade unions, facing a rollback of Australia’s proud record of workers’ rights and up to 43% youth unemployment, have stirred, and filled the streets.

But perhaps something wider and deeper is coming from a nation whose most enduring and melancholy self-image is that of disobedient larrikins (rebels). During the recent Ashes cricket series, Ian Chappell, one of Australia’s most admired captains, walked out of the commentary box when Howard walked in. After seeing for himself conditions in a refugee prison, Chappell said, “These are human beings and you can’t just treat them like that ... in cricketing parlance it was like cheating. They were being cheated out of a fair go.”

[From http://www.johnpilger.com.]

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #695 24 January 2007.