Corporate Crop Floodgate Opened

The Victorian and New South Wales governments have ended their respective moratoriums into Genetically Modified (GM) Canola. The move has given the green light to the controversial crop from February next year.
The move by Australia’s two most populous states and producer of half of Australia’s canola at 1.5 million tons, has pressured the remaining states to fall into line. The Pro GM National Farmers Federation (NFF) believes farmers have the right to choose whether they want GM crops or not. However, evidence shows that the spread of canola onto adjoining properties means real choice is not available.
GE Free Australia believes experiencefrom North America shows that production increases are minimal, chemical use decrease was temporary and ultimately the only real winners were the multinational companies like Monsanto and Bayer who would have control of the food supply deciding when and where the products were able to be grown. These big multinationals have also sued unsuspecting farmers for illegally growing their patented crops.
Geoffrey Carracher, from Minimay in the Victoria’s south-west, told the Bendigo Advertiser on 28 November, that last year he found high levels of contamination of his canola crop from nearby trial GM sites, despite promises from the GM lobby that this would never happen.
Companies are also worried of losing their all natural products as was shown by the 250 companies that signed a petition to the Victorian Premier arguing against the decision. As Tatiara Meats, Australia's largest lamb exporter, told the ABC on November 28,
"I think we have this unique chance to have a whole country which is clean and natural, and GM-free, and economically I think Australia will be much better off to market all its food produce overseas and domestic for that matter, as a natural, clean GM-free product, rather than give in to a couple of multinationals trying to entice a small group of farmers." Managing director, Eckard Huebl, said.
The Network of Concerned Farmers has countered the decision releasing a report explaining that the decision will mean a loss to Australian canola farmers of over $143 million a year with non-GM farmers carrying also affected to the tune of over $65 million a year.
Victorian Premier John Brumby has claimed the introduction will boost the economy and help the environment. Yet many people even his own MP’s have launched stinging attacks against the decision. Copies of Victoria’s chief scientists report were released only after the decision was already made.
Labor MP Tammy Lobato was just one of the dissenters to feel cut off by Brumby’s decision noting the lack of public discussion and independent analysis that had gone into the decision. Five Labor MP’s had written to the chief scientist arguing for a continuance to the moratorium.
Mr Brumby told the Age on November 28 that it was the “nature of politics” that people with strong views would be critical of views they didn’t like.
Despite claims that GM crops would be more environmentally friendly due to less pesticides being used experiences from abroad have shown how this situation can quickly change. The spread of weeds immune to the GM crops has meant that crops have needed more pesticides as time went on.
Gene Ethics, a group campaigning against the decision has also attacked the lack of labeling for GM canola products as further inhibiting the “right to choice” argument pushed by the pro-GM food lobby and its supporters. Products like margarines and oils, due to their refined nature, will not have to be labeled under the current legislation.
Representatives from the Biological Farmers of Australia believe a string of law suits could result from the decision with Goodman Fielder already coming out publicly against the decision.

Police and Protesters Clash in Macau

Police clashed with protesters in a May Day demonstration in the Chinese territory of
Macau .

The protesters numbered at around 2000 demonstrated against state corruption and illegal
workers. Local workers are angry that cheap illegal workers, mainly from Mainland China, are entering the territory to take jobs in Macau’s lucrative casino industry and undermine the local work laws. Local workers are angry that the boom in the industry is benefiting few and leaving many behind.

"The government is rich, the casinos are rich, but nobody is looking out for the Macau
people," one marcher told the AFP news agency

Protesters held signs asking for employers to be severely punished and for state officials to be stood down.

Police lashed out with water cannons, fired live “warning” shots into the crowd and used pepper spray as on demonstrators as protesters changed the official route of the march.

The protests and increased militancy of unions has signaled that all is not well in Macau despite the seemingly happy governmental relationship with the Chinese administration, in comparison with other territories like Hong Kong.

Why be an Activist Today?

Today we live in a world that upsets many. From climate change to poverty to war we face massive problems that for the sake of the planet, and its habitants, must be fixed.

But these issues are all so large and we as individuals often have little power to change the world. We can vote but we do not make the decisions on the issues that affect society.

Becoming an activist is about knowing you are not alone in caring for the planet. It is about standing up with others and making a statement. It is about pushing those with power towards making the concessions to both improve the world and instill a greater belief in the greater majority of our power to change the world.

Unlike work or school, no one is forcing you to be an activist. No one tells you to spend time fighting for a better world. In fact, for those in charge they would no doubt prefer if you did not care for politics because then they can continue to control your life.

Society today is run in the interests of those with the money, the capitalists. They own the companies we work for. Many of them walk away with massive profits from the work we do. They often also fund political parties that continue to rule against our interests and own newspapers whose editorial line reinforces the status quo.

Some will lead us to believe we live in a classless society. Yet, we have people who live in gated, security monitored communities while others live in ghetto like conditions and have to work multiple jobs. When we question society to harshly the systems protectors clamp down against us.

Politics is often seen as something politicians do in Canberra. But what they do there is make decisions about your life. Their decisions can have a big impact on your life, so it is important you defend your rights because if you don’t, who will?

Issues like your rights at work, school fees, affordable housing and helping the third world out of poverty are important to many. But ultimately we do not make the decisions that could address the problems of the world.

Building a society in which the people who are affected by the issues are able to make the decisions is what Socialism is ultimately about. It is a truly democratic society that values the rights of the greater majority over the minority that rules our world at present. It gives the chance for every individual to an equal chance at life.

So if you think the world is in need of fixing you should become an activist and to do this getting in touch with Resistance is a great start. Resistance is an Australia wide organization of young people who give a shit about the planet in which they live. They plan and collaborate with others to stand up for our rights and demand a better, more humane world.

Whether its by organizing a rally, educating others or getting involved in alternative newspaper, Green Left Weekly, Resistance members are aiming to make the kind of difference that can change the course of the world. But with each extra member Resistance can achieve so much more making us just that much closer to all of our aims.

So if you’re ready to make a difference to the world. Contact Resistance Today!

Check out the Resistance website at http://www.resistance.org.au/

Why are we sending more troops to Afghanistan?

Remember Afghanistan. It was that country we supposedly had “under control”, before heading illegally into Iraq. Howard’s latest announcement that we are too double our deployment in the country must leave many wondering what went wrong.

It was shortly after the 9/11 incident that we had committed our troops to fight the Taliban government and the Al Qaeda elements it supposedly supported. We were supposed to have caught Osama Bin Laden.

Al Qaeda and its leader had been aligned to America during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 70’s. But this time, like too many times before, the old ally who hated the U.S. just as much as the Soviet’s, turned on its former ally who had made it so powerful.

The Coalitions idea of democracy has always been a sham. The election of the U.S. friendly President Karzai been the instigator of compromises made with the warlords, many of whom are ex-Taliban and drug lords, making the democracy dream, simply a mirage that doesn’t stretch far beyond the Presidential gates.

Women’s rights, has been squashed as decent invasion reasoning by women within the country. Afghan MP Malaya Joya was in Australia earlier this year saying that the repressiveness of the previous administration has not ended and has in a lot of cases got worse under the occupation.

The U.S. War on Drugs in the country has also shown itself as a sham. Poppy production has increased under U.S. occupation and now sits at over 50% of GDP and over 90% of the world opium trade. While many small poppy producers have been done out of their living and been strung up as culprits, big time war lords have been able to obtain amnesty from the law. The U.S. War on their country has eliminated a lot of the alternative industries, giving small time farmers no other real choice.

But what about the Taliban being so dangerous and can we really leave without them taking over again? The fact is that for every day we remain in Afghanistan, the resistance grows, Taliban and others.

Our forces in the country are destroying people’s lives while they continue to prop up and defend the sham democracy that is in place. The longer they stay the more deaths we are going to see, with the increased likelihood of Australian casualties. Leaving Afghanistan will take away the main recruiting tool for these groups and will, when fair, unassigned reparations for all the damage we have created is paid, it will finally let Afghans choose their own future.

The Unequal Fight We Face against Climate Change

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth showed a clear depiction of the problem the world faces from climate change.

The film however skips over an important realization that we do not all act as equal combatants against the problem. Some people are clearly more at fault and therefore are more able to fix the problem.

An Oil Baron, for example, has a choice where to invest his vast wealth but continues to mine oil. A worker for the company is constrained by the need to work and is possibly facing the loss of their livelihood and no guarantee of policy change if they feel the need to leave the company.

Similarly, a person who has the money can convert their houses to run on sustainable energies. A poorer person however may not have the resources to be able to this no matter how environmentally conscious they are.

An example of this can be seen in Venezuela which is one of the leading oil exporters in the world today. The dependence on the oil industry that they face was built up over decades by corrupt rulers. These rulers would let foreign companies exploit the industries. Major bribe payments would be paid to the dealmaker, at the expense of the country.

With the election of Socialist Hugo Chavez, we have seen the taking back of oil industries with big companies told to pay their bills or get out. Money from the lucrative industry is for the first time being put into social programmes to improve people’s lives. Chavez realizes that the oil won’t last forever and is also putting some of the money into building alternative industries.

Countries like Venezuela are third world nations and we are told that they must lessen their dependence on oil at the same rate as first world nations. First world nations have the resources to not only convert their own countries over to sustainable industries. They also have the power to help poorer nations lessen their own dependence. After all, this dependence was often created by first world corporations in the first place.

Similarly first world nations should be helping, not shunning their poorer citizens. Government should be helping these people achieve sustainability by making it accessible. A simple example is fluorescent light bulbs which Venezuela and Cuba provided free to all citizens while Australia’s market economy demands we pay for them.

People are showing that they want to be involved in this fight against climate change. One of the most democratic showing of this sentiment is in environmental rallies. Most of the world’s population can wake up in the morning and decide whether an oil plant should be closed or whether a sustainable energy farm should be opened. But they can, in many cases, wake up and go to a rally to demand change.

First world consumers can often make small changes like changing light bulbs or installing energy efficient appliances if they can afford it. But to change the larger decisions that will affect the world the most we have is collective power. If we stand together, we can affect change by forcing industry and governments to make the decisions that we desire. If we create enough pressure we can force industry and government to make concessions. These concessions can create a greater belief in our collective power. This makes us more able to fight for the larger demands we have for society.

This is why it is important not only to think about your own impact but also think about the larger picture and think about ways we can create the real change we need before it’s too late.

War Resisters Helping Break War Concensus

It may be the story the government spin doctors aren’t telling you but the ever-growing movement of deserters from the U.S. armed forces are making an impact in government circles and on public opinion across North America.

Many war resisters have risked imprisonment to escape the war they see as morally and ethically corrupt. Some have fled to Canada following their Vietnam War forefathers when thousands made their northern neighbour their new home. During the Vietnam War, deserters became the spokes people against their government’s involvement in Vietnam and spurred the growth of a movement against the war.

Despite Canada having no troops in Iraq, the same as in Vietnam, the Canada’s authorities have so far refused refuge to any war resister, forcing them to remain illegally in the country or flee back into the United States.

Canadian PM Stephen Harper has set himself apart as a war leader and fierce U.S. ally since coming to power in early 2006. He fully supported the continued supply troops to prop up the U.S. backed rulers of Afghanistan. Stephen Harper has also aimed to cut ties with Canada’s “peacekeeper” tag and sees a closer relationship with the Bush Administration as vital for the countries security, even comparing John Howard’s relationship with Bush as something to aim for.

Groups like the War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada and the War Resisters League in the United States have sought to accommodate the war resisters by providing safe housing and protection. They have also, however, provided them with a platform from which their stories can be told to an ever growing audience. The very stories about the war the government don’t want you hearing.

War resisters involved in these organizations have been traveling around to make sure these stories are getting out across the country. With the rising consciousness, the crowds of people willing to listen to these stories having grown contributing to the growing movement against the war we are now seeing in North America.

In Canada, public opinion has been turning decisively against the Prime Minister and with a yet to be called election believed to be not too far away we could be quickly saying goodbye to the conservative government, a rare occurrence in a liberal dominated political history of Canadian governments.

When Guilt Loses its Meaning

With David Hicks admitting guilt to terrorism charges, right wing columnists have been quick to attack the many people who supported the campaign to bring home and free David Hicks.

Admitting guilt is usually a task usually assigned to those who have committed crimes. However, David’s court case, along with all those held at Guantanamo Bay, must leave many with a bad taste in their mouth.

The court setup at Guantanamo Bay had excludes itself from the Geneva Convention on human rights, it allows evidence obtained under torture as well as hearsay evidence. These laws would not stand up in any respectable nation. It was a court so dodgy it had to be set up on an offshore base, far from the law.

The charges were so uncertain it took five years to move the case to where we are today. They have been five years of justice denied. Evidence from Guantanamo Bay tells of the horrors of torture and the denial of basic human rights to the prisoners. Hicks went three years before even seeing a lawyer.

Ultimately, Hicks was in the wrong place at the wrong time probably doing something that many may not agree with. This doesn’t mean he committed any crime. If there was any evidence of him doing anything you would have thought that it could have been dug out after five years. Yet in the end, it was Hicks who possibly saw the plea as a way out who brought an end to the proceedings.

This is why we should not let Hicks stay a day longer in a prison whether it is one illegally placed on Cuban soil or one in our own backyard. A criminal conviction is supposed to be held by those who have committed a proven crime; we must never lose sight of this fact.

Venezuelans Show Another World Is Possible

When Bush visits Australia later this year thousands are expected to hit the streets in opposition to the man perhaps most well known for his numerous war crimes and suspect election “victories”.

For Bush, popular resentment has grown, with the president’s approval rating in the United States and around the globe dropping to record lows.

When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez spoke out at the United Nations General Assembly against the crimes of the United States administration he was representing a growing view that Bush’s decisions have proved disastrous to many not just in his own country but many around the globe.

In his own country, Chavez has aided a move towards a new system based on popular power and building what he calls “socialism for the 21st century”. The Bolivarian revolution, inspired by Simon Bolivar, a 19TH century South American liberation fighter, is about handing back to the people what is rightfully theirs.

A key piece of building the revolution has been the introduction of various missions, established to help the countries most needy, that had been left behind under previous regimes, with free healthcare and education as well as numerous other projects to help increase access to the basics as well as letting the masses take back greater collective democratic control not only through voting, but also taking real, meaningful control of their communities and companies.

Bush, on the other hand, has shown through his continued wars on Afghanistan and Iraq that he cares little. Many Americans are forced to go with out basics like decent education and health care. In a country held up as an ideal, few Americans see even basic dignity in the world’s largest economy.

The new vision for Venezuela has divided the country with a small minority actively aiming to oust the president despite him being democratically elected multiple times. The minority would like to see a return to the democracy they once saw as their own. A kind of democracy based on the minority rich, aristocratic classes exerting their domination over the country.

Private television stations owned by the richest section of Venezuelan society have actively supported the idea of ousting Chavez by any means necessary as was seen through their open support of the failed coup of 2002.

The United States denied any involvement in the coup. However, Ari Fletcher, a white house spokesperson, during the coup publicly announced his willingness to work with the newly imposed dictatorship.

When people who believe in social justice are asked “but what is the alternative?” it is important that they can not only show what is wrong with the world, but also know what these alternatives to the present system are. In Venezuela people should see hope.

Canadian Students Fight Tuition Fee Hikes

Thousands of Canadian students and their supporters are expected to protest Tuition fee hikes at a National Day of Action on February 7.

Tuition fees have been a growing concern for Canadian students with more and more students unable to complete post secondary education because of the spiraling costs. Students who are able to get loans are now paying back unprecedented amounts for their education.

The Canadian Federation of Students, as the peak body of students in Universities and Colleges in Canada, has lead a campaign to get the provincial governments to protect the right to education by freezing and reducing the fees. The fragmented nature of post secondary education being split between the provinces has made national campaigning hard for the CFS. The campaign has been most effective in Quebec where tuition fees have been frozen for the last decade and students are actively campaigning to remove all fees.

In Ontario, the largest province by population, the Liberal government has largely passed on these costs to students. Public money now makes up only 57% of tuition costs, down from 82% two decades ago. Significantly, seven of the ten most expensive programs are in Ontario Universities. University of Toronto Law students are paying $17,000 this year while a similar law program at Magill University in Montreal, Quebec cost under $4,000 this year. The “Reaching Higher” introduced by the Ontario Liberals has seen most undergraduate degrees raise their fees by 20% over four years with professional, graduate and post diploma fees up by nearly double that.

The fee rises have in some cases grown significantly since the mid nineties when federal post secondary transfer payments were cut leading to some provinces passing on these costs to students.

The costs have proved to have a toll on access with Statistics Canada for the first time in 1999 seeing a decline in the amount of students with a household income under $60,000 attended post secondary education, since they started recording it in 1965.

To fight the fees university and college campuses collectives have been set up to bring together the widest range of people in order to plan how they can fight back against the law and build the upcoming National day of Action as big as possible.

Groups on campus have been encouraged to organize their own unique events around the issue as well as work on campus wide campaigning to build up momentum towards February 7. Cross town meetings and communication, has been used to exchange ideas between campuses and organize joint actions.

With Tuition fees being an issue that affects all students indiscriminately the campaign has seen new layers of people becoming interested in their student union and its campaigns.

Tuition fees removal is an issue that is not likely to go away for students as long as they continue to exist. In a time when Student Unions strength has been waning in part due to attacks from governments willing to give up the right to an independent voice for students, it is important students are able to stand up and fight back. Through broad, inclusive and committed campaigns on issues like tuition fee removal, the active student movement can grow to once again become an independent, political force able to act as a real catalyst for change.

FOX NEWS PRODUCERS QUIT OVER COVERAGE

Two freelance Producers have resigned from Fox News in a protest against the networks coverage.

Serene Sabbagh and Jomana Karadshesh, based in Amman, Jordan have, in a resignation letter dated July 31, slammed the Fox News Network’s biased coverage of the conflict in Lebanon.

In the joint resignation letter which was posted to news organisations all over the world, Sabbagh and Karadshesh explain “that they no longer work with a news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you (sic) are so far from that”.

The letter also goes onto describe the network as “an instrument of the Bush White House and Israeli propaganda” as well as describing the FOX News as “war mongers with no sense of decency or professionalism”

Sabbagh told Democracy Now on the 16 August that “after three years and watching their coverage I thought I could change things here”. They said they hoped that the network “would develop a degree of respect to people in this part of the world."

Sabbagh described the coverage of Lebanon as featuring bias, slant, racist remarks, as well as including the word “we” when talking about Israel.

But admits the breaking point came with network anchors saying Hezbollah were using civilian children as human shields.

“One of the anchors went as far as saying they were planted there by Hezbollah to win support in this war. And it was unbelievable. For me, that was the breaking point, and this is when I decided, me and my colleague Jomana, to hand in our resignation,” Sabbagh said.

Serene Sabbagh is a freelance producer who has worked with CNN, ABC News, Al Jazeera as well as Fox News. Jomana Karadshesh is also a freelance producer who has worked as the Jordanian based producer as well as being the producer for Saddam Hussein’s trial coverage on FOX. Karadshesh has also worked for CNN inside Iraq.

U.S. Plots Cuba Invasion Plan

An $80 million fund has been approved by George W. Bush to help the United States ease into Cuba once Fidel Castro Dies.

In the second report from the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba (CAFC), released on July 5, the U.S. has planned stepped up attacks on the island states sovereignty. The reports compact with the Cuban people openly states that the United States will help, if asked, to create a transitional government that supports “genuine” democracy, human rights and an open market system as a way of integrating the country into the inter-American system.

The report also describes the first 180 days (after Castro dies) as vital saying they could mean the "difference between a successful transition period and the stumbles and missteps that have slowed other states in their transitions toward democracy".

George Bush has said the report shows “the U.S. is working for change in Cuba, not simply waiting for change”.

The CAFC describes the report not as an imposition but a promise to the Cuban people that the United States will be there to grow support around the world and help out when the time arises.

The $80 million dollar fund is to be used as a part of a two year program to break what the U.S. describes as the “information blockade” as well as preparations for the post- Castro transfer of power.

In a television interview Cuban National Assembly Ricardo Alarcon called the report a true threat of aggression believing Cubans have the right to be worried about the contents of the classified parts of the report.

Bruno Rodriguez, another Cuban government minister, also told the BBC on 6 July, that the plans put in place could not be achieved without an invasion.

Even a Cuban based government dissident has criticised the report with Ex-Government Economist/Journalist Oscar Espinosa Chepe, who broadcasts his anti government analysis on the U.S. backed Radio Marti, saying in a 11 July BBC report, that the reports approved recommendations are counterproductive.

GM Cotton Proves a Disaster for Farmers

GM Cotton crops have proved a costly, labour intensive and environmentally destructive alternative, a U.S. Study has found.

The pesticide savings, claimed by GM advocates as the advantage of the crop, have eroded over time, the Ithaca, New York based Cornell University researchers have reported.

Bt Cotton contains the Bacillus thuringiensis gene, inserted into the seeds to produce toxins to protect the plant. These toxins, however, have only proved lethal to leaf eating bollworms.

Seven years into the study, involving 481 Chinese farmers from five of the countries cotton growing provinces, populations of other insects, particularly mirids, have taken hold. Farmers have had to spray up to 20 times in growing season to control them, a similar amount of pesticide to that used on conventional crops.

The study found that by year three of the study pesticide use was cut by 70 percent. But by 2004 the spraying schedule equaled that of conventional crop farmers and proved uneconomic with the GM crop costing three times the cost of the conventional crop.

Bt Cotton was first introduced in 1996 by the Monsanto corporation, infamous for their role in producing Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War and the controversial Bovine growth hormone. Bt cotton today counts for 35 percent of worldwide cotton production with five million farmers of the crop in China alone. It also is widely produced in Mexico and South Africa as well as the United States, Argentina and India.