As a previous campaigner of the Wilderness Society, committed activist for 15-years, one who dedicated my life to the 'cause'...

I left, and now oppose the 'greens' I still support the environment? Why do I oppose the 'greens'?

Because they are now committed to excess and damaging the world and our children's future. They have been taken over by the irrational zealots of many 'social causes', like nasty-feminism. FemiNasties don't want equity or fairness. They want to hurt men.

According to the Greens, Democrats and ALP Left it's OK for women to lie under oath in court.

During the debate on the new Family Law Act 2006, The Greens and Dems lined up, to support a women's FREEDOM TOP LIE IN COURT!

Democrats Senator STOTT DESPOJA said "a number of us feel very strongly... (we oppose) costs where a false allegation or statement in proceedings is proven." (30 March 2006 Hansard SENATE page 203)

ALP left Senator LUDWIG also wanted those who intentionally lie in court to be let off scott-free. (Page 204)

Finally Greens Senator SIEWERT "The Greens strongly... request that the government... withdraw this particular amendment... This is of extreme concern for us...The impact it will have is to discourage women from making claims..." (Hansard, page 206)

SO IT IS OK FOR WOMEN TO LIE IN THE FEMINST COURT according to the Greens, Dems. and ALP!

Lying in court is child abuse!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Now if the Divorce Court is trying to find the best interests of the child, and if that decision is based on a lie... then the child's best interests are not achieved, the child's rights are hurt by the lie.

Lying in court, under oath, is CHILD ABUSE!
But the Greens say it's OK.


Citation Senate Hansard; Refering to the clause in the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 No. 46, 2006, page 32 (PDF page is different).
117AB Costs where false allegation or statement made... the court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings.

PartTimeparent@pobox.com
www.Fathers4Equality-Australia.org

There seems to be an upper/lower case problem with the article. It is clear from the article as a whole that Peter is talking about those groups that collecively may be called 'greens' or 'the greens' or 'the greenies', but NOT particularly to the Greens. That is a political party and is but a very small subset of the 'greens' as a whole. Such a shame that what is little more than a punctuation issue has the potential to divert attention away from the essential message in the article. Perhaps the editorial side of the OLO should correct the problem, though it is very late.

Can I get that printed on a metal plaque, healthwatcher? It's timeless.

eyejaw: "It is clear from the article as a whole that Peter is talking about those groups that collecively may be called 'greens' or 'the greens' or 'the greenies', but NOT particularly to the Greens"

I wondered about that myself. However, I thought that Peter Ridd might be engaged in a bit of "obfuscatory word play" himself, since his intemperate spray appears to be overtly political in intent and he persistently refers to "the Greens" throughout, while conflating the name of the political party with positions he attributes to the wider environmental movement. I note that a recruitment advertisement for the Australian Environmental Foundation appears on the second page of his tendentious article - are they "Greens" as well?

Having said that, I have long been disappointed in the absence of a comprehensive population policy from the Australian Greens political party, and a general avoidance of the population issue from other, more exclusively environmental, groups. I also agree with Ridd on the issue of Indigenous hunting of endangered species - if a species is endangered it should be protected, rather than hunted by anyone for whatever reasons.

On the other hand, to label the Greens or the environmental lobby generally as "illogical and treacherous" is hardly conducive to encouraging them to address these policy deficits and inconsistencies. We are not going to get a sufficiently rigorous population policy from Labor or the Coalition, nor it appears from pseudo-environmental puppet groups like the AEF.

An excellent article and excellent comments from Ludwig, Col Rouge, and Bernie Masters.

Lev, the international aid aspects of the Greens' population policy look good, but at home it looks pretty obvious that concern for the environment is trumped by international social justice concerns, as can be seen by such clauses as "in the context of social justice" and "prepare contingency plans for possible large scale humanitarian migration as a result of climate change".

The other issue is that the Greens do not follow up their policy in their public pronouncements. What did the Greens have to say about the baby bonus? Why aren't Bob Brown and his colleagues criticising the mass migration policy of both the Liberal and Labour governments, which now amounts to more than one net migrant for every death? Britain's Optimum Population Trust has calculated that, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, one additional baby is equivalent to 650 round trip flights between New York and London. It would be 980 such flights for an Australian baby, as our per capita emissions are higher. The Australia Institute has calculated that two net migrants, on average, add the same amount to global emissions as one additional baby.

Extinction is forever, so the protection of endangered species has to come before indigenous rights.

If we trash our environment and collapse our society, we won't be able to deal with anyone's social justice concerns. The order of priorities ought to be obvious.

Exactly the sort of cherry-picking ideologicaly based polemic that you would expect from the so called "Environment" Foundation with its facade of scientific "objectivity". Never mind that it is a front organization for big-business and its bottom-line imperatives.

Any culture that uses the bottom-line as its sole (soul-less) measure of value will go down the tube in very quick time.

The Greens are a political party and there are contradictions in both their policies and actions. So what?

At least they ask REAL questions re what our "culture" is really all about.

Are the Greens, or anyone else for that matter, who is interested in social justice issues, supposed to offer some kind of apologetic/explanatory statement re the countless examples of horrors being committed against Earthkind every day.

Each of can only do the best that we can within our own limited sphere of influence.

Meanwhile our way of life, that is of never-ending "growth" IS unsustainable.

The ruling credo being I shop therefore I am. I AM my possessions.

And how "free" is the consumer anyhow?

Sitting in front of his/her idiotification machine (TV) being "entertained". Or rather ENTRAINED or CLONED into the system-- so that the system has become the only POSSIBLE "reality" as in the virtual world of the Matrix films

Being LIED to about almost everything. And being PASSIVELY told what is "real", what to believe, what to buy, what to get excited about, who to hate etc by the 24/7 relentless propaganda for the military-industrial-entertaiment machine.

We even plonk our babies, toddlers and children in front of the idiotification machine to be "entertained". To be CLONED and ENTRAINED from day one. Huxley's titty-tainment and the 1984 Ministry of "truth" all combined in one seamless whole---or is that hole.

And we wonder why the MEGA- machine is unstoppable

Vance Packard (The Hidden Persuaders) told us years ago how the system works. As did Stuart Ewan in Captains of Consciousness and Culture Against Man by Jules Henry. Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds

Meanwhile I quite like this assessment of the "reality" created by the media.

1. http://www.ispeace723.org/youthepeople4.html