Al I've been reading the Greens main policy page (finally got time away) and the closest things to what you described doesn't have anything suspicious.
-Multiculturalism seems to pledge, as measures, anti-discrimination measures for services, providing assistance to non-English speakers and abolsih "Australian Values" testing for Immigrants.
-Justice only talks about separating powers of govermnent and making all tiers (legislative, judicial) more independent from each other, abolishing compulsory sentencing, as well as aligning our justice obligations to UN and factoring in social/cultural considerations into sentencing (the last two of which I disagree with).

I've found no socialist agenda at all, besides their pro-public-funded services and anti-privatisation platform- both of which I personally support. Could you provide your sources?

Noted Hazz...sorry I didn't include links there.

Here we go :)

http://greens.org.au/node/776

Point 1. "Global Governance" (=Socialism)

http://greens.org.au/node/781

Point 4. "All peoples have the right to self determination"

Hazza.. let's say one of those "peoples" are within Australia and they happen to want to live under Sharia law ? :)

Imagine if one community has values which include old men marrying multiple small children..and FGM and wife beating, and sexual relations with captive women slaves... all of which are quite ok under Sharia (whether or not you and I see such things actually being practiced by the friendly loving monogomous Muslim family next door).

Once you change a legal framework....then people are free to practice according to their religious prinicples without the legal restraint we have currently.

Imagine complete Sovereignty/self determination for Aboriginals? or worse.. Taswegians :)

Excuse me for being thick..but I cannot see how 'Global Governance' and the Greens emphasis on 'Human Rights' is compatible with "All peoples should have "self determination".

*IMPORTANT*.. I don't know how much you have read on the areas of
-UN
-Socialism
-Human Rights
-Political Correctness
-Multiculturalism
-Marxism
-Frankfurt School
-Herbert Marcuse
-60s revolution/counter culture (USA)

FYI
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

...but it is riddled/infested/infected with Socialism. (the soft version) -the 'hard' version will come after they get control. "Global Governance"

Al
E5 "Global Governance"
E6 "Self determination and sovereignty"

I don't see a contradiction or a problem if the structures are set up to ensure fairer economic relationships for developing nations and better humanitarian and environmental caveats on (for example) mining offshore and the effects on the people of those nations.

It is possible, IMO to do that while still ensuring a nation's right to sovereignty. eg. free trade is not the great equaliser it is purported to be and I can see partly your point of forcing nations into trade relationships they find devestate their own industries/agriculture etc. Or lead to exports out of poorer nations while their own local markets and food security is adversely affected.

It is possible to marry the sovereign rights of nations with the idea of governance ie. accountability, fairness, equity and transparency ('scuse the buzz words).

We live with those two competing ideals all the time - individual sovereignty and laws to protect for the greater good ie. we can live as free men/women but we cannot steal, rape, pillage or murder without consequence.

CONT/...

Part II:
Your comment about a good Independent candidate is apt, but Canberra rarely stands independents. On occasion you might get a one-issue party in the mix - we even had the sundried tomato party at one point in protest at the ACT self-government despite two referendums opposing the decision. :)

The Greens appeal to me as their policies look at the big picture and they hold environmental concerns as a priority. Anyone who cares about the planet and human interaction would naturally be attracted to the Greens.

I don't share some of their views eg. Some aspects of drug policy (although it is not as bad as it sounds, the Greens were for a drug trial in the first instance).

Bob Brown also attracts me as a man who is sincere, honest and actually walks the walk on accountability. He is one of the few politicians who is willing to vote against actions such as rises in politician's salaries arguing for restraint while government has sought restraint from the public. No politician is perfect and no politician can ever reflect every position a voter holds but we vote the closest to our ideals.

There are too many issues to list here but overall I believe the Greens are more closely aligned with the people and less aligned with vested interest groups. Naturally the environmental bent is attractive although I remain open-minded about man induced climate change. There are other issues like deforestation, pollution, urban congestion, overpopulation, biodiversity, water management. The environment is not just about CC.

Not really Al- their "self determination' principal is only being applied to West Papua in policy.

Global governance really only boils down to nations obeying international law (should only relate to international relations- the rest of the laws are rubbish), increasing support of UN aid groups (fine), dismantling WTO and similar international bodies (good).

Anyway, as for whether Shariah groups, Aboriginal groups and Taswegians aught to get a separate state; No, yes, yes.

I do not support shariah or wahabis at all and do not want to encourage them to move to Australia and try to confiscate chunks of land, the other two I see no problem with (plus these two communities have a more solid claim to the land, being around near the start of federation and BEFORE).

Hi Pelly and Hazza

interesting feedback.

Ok..let me wax 'biblical' for a moment :) (a moment of madness?)

The idea of global governance does sound good in theory...I admit this.

That's as far as it goes though.

Take this ancient story for example.

Joseph.. sold into slavery by his brothers.. emerges as a big shot in Phaoroh's court.. running just about everything for Phaoroh.

Then.. long story short.. we read these words:

"Then..there arose a Pharaoh who did not know about Joseph" (Exodus 1:8)

"Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become much too numerous for us. 10 Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country."

11 So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.

and so the story goes.. life went downhill for the Israelites.

In the UN we have a number of dark forces at work..where the last thing on their mind is 'fairness, justice and equality'

Some examples

-OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference a block of 56 voting nations) who want to put masking tape over our mouths if we want to take issue with Muslim men beating their wives and speak thus openly.

-JAPANESE with their lobbying and 'linked aid' to small countries to sway their vote about issues of concern to Japan (Whaling mainly)

-The ENVIRONMENT crowd.... Maurice Strong, and many others.

-MARXISTS. (they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk)

THE PROBLEM.... is where these people and voting blocks..want to 'change' so called 'international law' in ways which benefit their stakeholders.

So..any 'Global' anything results in just a bigger version of our current spat over mining tax.
In such a situation.. does anyone really think the 'little guy' will ever get heard?