Uganda: " Hounds freeze in silence bewitched by the reptile spell "

The NZ Herald reports

Giant, man-eating crocodile caught in Uganda

                                       A giant crocodile caught by the Uganda Wildlife Authority. Photo / AFP


A giant, one-tonne crocodile has been caught by Ugandan villagers, after allegedly eating a man and maiming several others in a village.

A bit of competition for Museveni. Actually it is good to be blogging about a real crocodile rather than the human variety.

The reptile was captured by the Uganda Wildlife Authority after a four-day hunt along the shores of Lake Victoria, in Kakira village.

The crocodile, believed to be approximately 80-years-old, was trapped by officials using meat on a hook and transported out of the village on a truck while more than 100 residents watching.

I am glad they didn't adopt the Western Australia approach. A dog urinating on a lamppost isn't being anti social it is being a dog.  

"Residents appealed to UWA to hunt the crocodile following the death of a resident from Kakira town council in Jinja district," a UWA official told The New Vision Ugandan daily.

The reptile's presence proved problematic for local fisherman, who became too scared to approach the lake until it was caught.

I can't say that I blame them.

                         A giant crocodile caught by volunteers from Uganda Wildlife Authority. Photo / Donald Kiirya

The crocodile has since been transferred to the Murchison Falls National Park. At 1,000 kg, it weighs just 75 kg less than Lolong, the world's largest crocodile, who died last year.

I am guessing that Murchison Falls National Park well at least the water ways just got a new CEO.

Australia: "...to pay the rent, to give it back, it belongs to them. "

The Guardian reports


Another stolen generation: how Australia still wrecks Aboriginal families
The mass removal of Indigenous children from their parents continues unabated – where is the outrage?

Most Aboriginal families live on the edge. Their life expectancy in towns a short flight from Sydney is as low as 37. Photograph: David Gray/Reuters

The tape is searing. There is the voice of an infant screaming as he is wrenched from his mother, who pleads, "There is nothing wrong with my baby. Why are you doing this to us? I would've been hung years ago, wouldn't I? Because [as an Aboriginal Australian] you're guilty before you're found innocent." The child's grandmother demands to know why "the stealing of our kids is happening all over again". A welfare official says, "I'm gunna take him, mate."

This is beyond astonishing. It would seem Australia has learnt nothing from its past, I have no problem with kids being removed from inherently dangerous situations. Not removing them in New Zealand has lead to far to many of our kids dying.  The key point is that every attempt is made to place children the state has had to seize with other family members in a safe environment. 

This happened to an Aboriginal family in outback New South Wales. It is happening across Australia in a scandalous and largely unrecognised abuse of human rights that evokes the infamous stolen generation of the last century. Up to the 1970s, thousands of mixed-race children were stolen from their mothers by welfare officials. The children were given to institutions as cheap or slave labour; many were abused.

That it happened is terrible, that it is still happening is beyond belief. In a study released today by Monash University Melbourne a finding was made that should scare the crap out of Australians.

" The migrants were asked whether they would describe Australians as caring, friendly and hospitable people; just 1 per cent of Kiwis did so, compared with 7 per cent of immigrants from the United States and Canada."

The Kiwi figure is not that much of a surprise, we know the Australians better than anyone else what is a real worry is that it would seem that Australia is falling behind both Canada and the USA. But of course America and Canada have like New Zealand at least made an effort to compensate indigenous citizens for the appalling damage inflicted on them through colonisation. Australia has done nothing, in fact it is doing worse than nothing. Nothing would be a blessing.

Described by a chief protector of Aborigines as "breeding out the colour", the policy was known as assimilation. It was influenced by the same eugenics movement that inspired the Nazis. In 1997 a landmark report, Bringing Them Home, disclosed that as many 50,000 children and their mothers had endured "the humiliation, the degradation and sheer brutality of the act of forced separation ... the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state". The report called this genocide.

It is genocide.

Assimilation remains Australian government policy in all but name. Euphemisms such as "reconciliation" and "Stronger Futures" cover similar social engineering and an enduring, insidious racism in the political elite, the bureaucracy and wider Australian society. When in 2008 prime minister Kevin Rudd apologised for the stolen generation, he added: "I want to be blunt about this. There will be no compensation." The Sydney Morning Herald congratulated Rudd on a "shrewd manoeuvre" that "cleared away a piece of political wreckage in a way that responds to some of its own supporters' emotional needs, yet changes nothing".

" There will be no compensation...."  We may not have it exactly right in New Zealand but at least we have made an effort.

" Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements have been a significant feature of New Zealand race relations and politics since 1975. Over the last 30 years, New Zealand governments have increasingly provided formal legal and political opportunity for Māori to seek redress for breaches by the Crown of the guarantees set out in the Treaty of Waitangi. While it has resulted in putting to rest a number of significant longstanding grievances, the process has been subject to criticisms from a number of angles, from those who believe that the redress is insufficient to compensate for Māori losses, to those who see no value in revisiting painful and contentious historical issues. The settlements are typically seen as part of a broaderMāori Renaissance."

Today, the theft of Aboriginal children – including babies taken from the birth table – is now more widespread than at any time during the last century. As of June last year, almost 14,000 Aboriginal children had been "removed". This is five times the number when Bringing Them Home was written. More than a third of all removed children are Aboriginal – from 3% of the population. At the present rate, this mass removal of Aboriginal children will result in a stolen generation of more than 3,300 children in the Northern Territory alone.

I guess it easier to keep people in poverty and despair than to take ownership of the past in a real way with an apology Rudd that is genuine and a plan to right the wrongs, easier still to keep on inflicting a very Australian genocide that you hope the world will not notice.  

Pat (not her real name) is the mother whose anguish was secretly recorded on a phone as four department of child services officials, and six police, descended on her home. On the tape an official claims they have come only for an "assessment". But two of the police officers, who knew Pat, told her they saw no risk to her child and warned her to "get out of here quick". Pat fled, cradling her infant, but the one-year-old was eventually seized without her knowing why. The next morning a police officer returned to apologise to her and said her baby should never have been taken away. Pat has no idea where her son is.

So the police knew she was a good mother two officers told her to bugger off quick. What is wrong with this picture, Australian police have guns, I am not a fan of giving cops guns, not least because they never seem to know when to use them. Those cops should have drawn their weapons and defended " Pat " a few dead Child Service Officials who are clearly not fit for the job would have been a small price for the Australian community to pay.  

Once she was "invited" by officials to bring her children to "neutral" offices to discuss a "care plan". The doors were locked and officials seized the children, with one of the youngest dragging on a police officer's gun belt. Many Indigenous mothers are unaware of their legal rights. A secretive children's court has become notorious for rubber-stamping removals.

You steal a country, you then commit acts of genocide on the indigenous population 200 years later. Fuck you Australia.

Most Aboriginal families live on the edge. Their life expectancy in towns a short flight from Sydney is as low as 37. Dickensian diseases are rife; Australia is the only developed country not to have eradicated trachoma, which blinds Aboriginal children.

Australia is of course known as the " Lucky Country " I guess you have to be White.

Pat has both complied with and struggled bravely against a punitive bureaucracy that can remove children on hearsay. She has twice been acquitted of false charges, including "kidnapping" her own children. A psychologist has described her as a capable and good mother.

Josie Crawshaw, the former director of a respected families' support organisation in Darwin, told me: "In remote areas, officials will go in with a plane in the early hours and fly the child thousands of kilometres from their community. There'll be no explanation, no support, and the child may be gone forever."

Think about that. It would result in a substantial gaol term in most nations.

In 2012 the co-ordinator general of remote services for the Northern Territory, Olga Havnen, was sacked when she revealed that almost A$80m (£44m) was spent on the surveillance and removal of Aboriginal children compared with only A$500,000 (£275,000) on supporting the same impoverished families. She told me: "The primary reasons for removing children are welfare issues directly related to poverty and inequality. The impact is just horrendous because if they are not reunited within six months, it's likely they won't see each other again. If South Africa was doing this, there'd be an international outcry."

Exactly. But it is our mates the Aussies....fuck you Australia I am ashamed of you, the ANZAC code only goes so far and you have broken it.

She and others with long experience I have interviewed have echoed the Bringing them Home report, which described an official "attitude" in Australia that regarded all Aboriginal people as "morally deficient". A department of family and community services spokesman said that most removed Indigenous children in New South Wales were placed with Indigenous carers. According to Indigenous support networks, this is a smokescreen; it does not mean families, and it is control by divisiveness that is the bureaucracy's real achievement.

I met a group of Aboriginal grandmothers, all survivors of the first stolen generation, all now with stolen grandchildren. "We live in a state of fear, again," they said. David Shoebridge, a state Greens MP, told me: "The truth is, there is a market among whites for these kids, especially babies."

It is time to sanction Australian politicians and senior officials. 

The New South Wales parliament is soon to debate legislation that introduces forced adoption and "guardianship". Children under two years old will be liable – without the mother's consent – if "removed" for more than six months. For many Aboriginal mothers like Pat, it can take six months merely to make contact with their children. "It's setting up Aboriginal families to fail," said Shoebridge.

Not at all Australia sets families up to succeed if they are white it is setting up Aboriginal families to fail. That is genocide.

I asked Josie Crawshaw why. "The wilful ignorance in Australia about its first people has now become the kind of intolerance that gets to the point where you can smash an entire group of humanity and there is no fuss."

Why indeed.

New Zealand: " And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour "

The New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage describes our current flag thus:

                                                                                              Current NZ Flag

" The New Zealand Flag is New Zealand’s national symbol. Its royal blue background represents the blue sea and sky surrounding us, and the stars of the Southern Cross signify our place in the South Pacific Ocean. The Union Flag recognises our historical foundations and that New Zealand was once a British colony and dominion."

The problem of course is top left. The debate has been ongoing for a few years now, not only  does our flag look like the Australian flag but who wants the Union Jack ? Let the Brits and Aussies keep it and Scotland go for it in September.

                                                                                               Australian Flag

This is the best option I have seen to date and I really hope we adopt it or something better in the referendum on the Flag next year.

                                                                And screw you Canada we are in the flag game.

We have not been a British colony for years. Lets let the world know that, and lets get a jump on our cousins across the ditch.

South Africa: Madiba, Pienaar and that Rugby World Cup.

Voice of America reports

South African Rugby Hero Reflects on Unlikely Friendship with Nelson Mandela

Darren Taylor

Last updated on: February 28, 2011 7:00 PM

On spotting this article hidden away amongst all the tributes to Madiba I must say I was some what astonished that I was reading an American and not a New Zealand news story. That might be an indication of just how much we expected to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup, that said New Zealand expects to win every RWC. Fortunately the dateline sort of explains it.

                                                  Francois Pienaar Nelson Mandela RWC 1995

Former Springbok captain Francois Pienaar credits ‘Madiba’ with historic World Cup win and racial reconciliation in South Africa.

There would be absolutely no argument from any New Zealander about the about the latter, call it poor sportsmanship if you like but we Kiwi's tend to credit Suzie with the former achievement.   

Subsequently, various allegations were made surrounding the lead up to the final. Many of the New Zealand players were suffering from food poisoning 48 hours prior to the game, which affected their performance in the final. New Zealand coach Laurie Mains alleged a mysterious waitress known as "Suzie" had deliberately poisoned the All Blacks' water in the week before the final. During the match New Zealand players could be seen throwing up on the sidelines.

It is also worth noting just how utterly revolting the attitude and sportsmanship of the South African Rugby Union was at that time. Mandela arrived not a moment too late for both South Africa and quite probably for the sport of Rugby Union.

However, the after match mood soured considerably during the end of tournament banquet when South Africa's rugby president, Louis Luyt said in his speech that "There were no true world champions in the 1987 and 1991 World Cups because South Africa were not there." This claim that South Africa were the first "true world champions" led the New Zealand team to walk out of the dinner.

The reason South Africa wasn't at those tournaments was quite simply apartheid. The 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand is perhaps a better starting point if one wants to understand the influence of rugby with regard to changing South Africa. You could also argue it was a long overdue starting point for change in New Zealand.

"The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa was buoyed by events in New Zealand. Nelson Mandela recalled that when he was in his prison cell on Robben Island and heard that the game in Hamilton had been cancelled, it was as ‘if the sun had come out’."

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA —

In 1995, South Africa hosted the Rugby World Cup tournament.  It was just a year after the country’s first democratic elections, the first time black people had been allowed to vote after decades of white minority rule.

 But South Africa then was even more deeply divided along racial lines than it is now.  It was also split along sporting lines, with the white minority being passionate followers of rugby, and the black majority worshipping football, otherwise known as soccer. 

The hard truth is that is still a problem today. Incidently Peter De Villiers was the first Black African to coach the springboks.

" In many ways post-apartheid South African rugby views itself as upholding an Afrikaner ethos and values. Any efforts to change South African rugby have to contend with this history.

The former Springbok coach Peter de Villiers knows this very well. Commenting on the SARU plans to introduce a quota system, de Villiers is quoted in the media as saying that the quota system will never work.

As far as de Villiers is concerned, transformation in South African rugby will come about when "there is a transformation period in people's hearts."

Exactly. For that populational transformation in peoples hearts to happen there needs to be real investment in black players and indeed black rugby. It needs to happen in the townships.  

In most parts of black South Africa, the country’s rugby team, the Springboks, was reviled as a symbol of racial oppression.  The Springboks had been funded and adored by successive administrations of the National Party (NP) - the largely Afrikaner political organization that established apartheid in 1948.  

It was a bit surreal having the All Blacks as favourites of the black community in South Africa when they played the Springboks. That thanks to Mandela ( or should that be "thanks Mandela " ) is now to a large degree something of the past.  

But the Springbok captain in 1995, Francois Pienaar, was convinced that winning the Cup could help reconcile black and white South Africans.

The burly blonde Afrikaner wasn’t alone. He found a powerful ally in then-President Nelson Mandela – the revolutionary leader of the African National Congress (ANC) who had been jailed for 27 years by the NP government for fighting against the white supremacist regime.  

Pienaar and Mandela formed an unlikely and dramatic partnership that sustained a nation at a particularly fragile time in South Africa’s often tragic history.

One has to suspect that with Mandela gone the immediate future might well be fragile.

‘Madiba’ embraces the Springboks 

The former Springbok captain recalls Mandela phoning him constantly during the 1995 World Cup, asking after the team’s well-being.  During the competition, the president also appeared on national TV to assure the Springboks of his support.  

Pienaar says Mandela’s backing “meant the world” to him and his team of underdogs.  Rugby pundits had written off their chances of winning the trophy, but the Springboks eventually battled through to the final.  Their opponents were the New Zealand All Blacks, who at the time were the mightiest force in international rugby.  Again, the experts maintained South Africa had no chance of victory. 

New Zealand is always the mightiest force in world rugby. The problem is that no team can win every time it goes onto the field and the All Blacks are no exception to that rule ( 2013 results aside ). The All Blacks just happen to be really bad at world cups, currently us the Aussies and South Africa have two apiece and inexplicably somehow England have one.  I mostly blame the French for New Zealand's failure to dominate this fixture. 

But Mandela disagreed with them, and in the dressing room of the Ellis Park Stadium in Johannesburg, a few hours before kickoff, he told Pienaar so.

“Madiba stood there, wearing a Springbok jersey; he had a Springbok badge over his heart.  It was very emotional for me, seeing this man, who had gone through so much, being willing to do this for us,” he recalls.

To this day, Pienaar refers to Mandela affectionately by the liberation hero’s Xhosa clan name, “Madiba.”  Yet the rugby player, like most white South African children of his generation and before, had grown up fearing Mandela as a “terrorist.”  But, in the space of a few weeks, Pienaar and his team containing just a single black player had come to know Mandela as a “symbol of everything that is good in humanity,” and a man willing to wear the green and gold Springbok regalia that had been created by his former oppressors.

I doubt that Mandela would have seen it as being " willing to wear the green and gold Springbok regalia ", in fact I very much doubt he would have seen it as symbol of apartheid. Mandela I am sure would have viewed it as part of the sporting and cultural inheritance of South Africa and as such, something belonging to all South Africans.   

Triumph for the Rainbow Nation

The ex-captain remembers walking out of the changing room and onto the field, “with the sounds of ‘Madiba!  Nelson, Nelson, Nelson!’” reverberating around the stadium.     

The cheers for Mandela, from a crowd of 65,000 that was almost exclusively white – many who had previously supported his imprisonment – made international headline news.  This moment, when South African whites cheered for the ANC leader as much as they did for their beloved rugby team, would come to be a powerful symbol of a changing South Africa.

That match was about far more than rugby. It was a realisation that a new nation had been born and from a white perspective it was probably relief that they were a part of it. I wonder how white South Africans feel today, particularly when they look north to Zimbabwe ?  

" .....Mr Malema is similar to politicians in Zimbabwe's Zanu-PF party, led by President Robert Mugabe.

"They express conservative views on social issues [for instance, gay rights]. When it comes to economics they use socialist rhetoric but they are, in fact, capitalists who use the state to advance their own political and business interests."

One of his first run-ins with the ANC leadership came in 2010, when he praised Robert Mugabe's seizures of white-owned land."

And when they finally took the field, fired up by Mandela, the Springboks continued this transformation.  In a marathon game often described as one of the greatest ever sporting contests, South Africa narrowly beat New Zealand by 15 points to 12, with virtually the last kick of the game. 

The stereotypical New Zealand response to a defeat is a cliche along the lines of " rugby was the winner on the day " . That day rugby was arguably a spectator, it was South Africa that was the winner.

Critics had called the Springboks “no-hopers,” dismissing any chance the team would do well.  But the no-hopers from the multiracial nation that Archbishop Desmond Tutu had described as “God’s rainbow people” had triumphed.  A proud and smiling Mandela, still clad in his Springbok rugby jersey, strode onto the field to shake Pienaar’s hand and to present the golden World Cup to him.

“When Madiba handed the trophy to me, I shook his hand, and he said to me, ‘Thank you for what you’ve done for South Africa….’”  Pienaar says he was “dumbstruck” when Mandela, who had almost sacrificed his life so that South Africans could be free of racist domination, thanked him – a “mere white rugby player” – for his contribution to the country.

A bit of false modesty on Pienaar's part I suspect.

‘Leader’ and ‘Brave One’ 

Following the historic victory, Mandela maintained contact with Pienaar – even phoning him to congratulate him on the birth of his first son, Jean.  “Madiba gave him the Xhosa nickname, Nkokele, which means ‘leader.’  He also told me that Jean would be his godchild,” he says.  

A few years later, Mandela invited Pienaar and his family to tea at the former president’s Johannesburg home.  The rugby player’s second son, Stefan, was five years old at the time.  After the boy begged Mandela to also be his godfather, the Nobel Peace Prize winner hugged him, laughed and declared, “I will call you ‘brave one.’”

Pienaar says, “That just goes to show what kind of a person Madiba is, that he always finds time for all people in life, no matter how small they are.  I think absolute humility is his greatest virtue.”

The world is a far poorer place today than it was yesterday.  

In 2007, in France, the Springboks – this time with new captain John Smit at the helm – again reached the World Cup final. In a videotaped message to the team before the game, Mandela urged them to “play the game hard and honestly, and whatever the outcome – hold your heads high. We are convinced that you will triumph and bring the trophy home."

The Springboks indeed emerged victorious, beating England to once again win rugby’s most coveted prize.

Bloody French, took us out in the quarter final.

Pienaar will always be grateful to Mandela for supporting what was then the “white sport” of rugby. But he emphasizes that the freedom fighter should ultimately be remembered more for saving South Africa from what would have been a disastrous civil war.

He says, “Things didn’t go totally wrong in South Africa because we had the most amazing leader, at the right time.”

Sometimes, not often but sometimes everything just falls into place.   
By supporting rugby, Mandela had suddenly and boldly gained the affection of millions of white South Africans. Analysts agree the strategy probably avoided further tragedy in South Africa. They continue to use it as proof of Mandela’s genius.

Genius....maybe but more likely his humanity. The world lost a little bit of its magic yesterday 

RIP Madiba. 

Racial Tolerance: The Cartography of Bullshit

The Washington Post reports

A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries

Among the dozens of questions that World Values asks, the Swedish economists found one that, they believe, could be a pretty good indicator of tolerance for other races. The survey asked respondents in more than 80 different countries to identify kinds of people they would not want as neighbors. Some respondents, picking from a list, chose “people of a different race.” The more frequently that people in a given country say they don’t want neighbors from other races, the economists reasoned, the less racially tolerant you could call that society. (The study concluded that economic freedom had no correlation with racial tolerance, but it does appear to correlate with tolerance toward homosexuals.)

Unfortunately, the Swedish economists did not include all of the World Values Survey data in their final research paper. So I went back to the source, compiled the original data and mapped it out on the infographic above. In the bluer countries, fewer people said they would not want neighbors of a different race; in red countries, more people did. 

That is so badly worded I had to read it twice to figure it out but if you are blue you are good and if you are red you are not.

Anglo and Latin countries most tolerant. People in the survey were most likely to embrace a racially diverse neighbor in the United Kingdom and its Anglo former colonies (the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and in Latin America. The only real exceptions were oil-rich Venezuela, where income inequality sometimes breaks along racial lines, and the Dominican Republic, perhaps because of its adjacency to troubled Haiti. Scandinavian countries also scored high.

India and Jordan by far the least tolerant. In only two of 81 surveyed countries, more than 40 percent of respondents said they would not want a neighbor of a different race. This included 43.5 percent of Indians and 51.4 percent of Jordanian. (Note: World Values’ data for Bangladesh and Hong Kong appear to have been inverted, with in fact only 28.3 and 26.8 percent, respectively, having indicated they would not want a neighbor of a different race. Please see correction at the bottom of this post.)

Racial tolerance low in diverse Asian countries. Nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines, where many racial groups often jockey for influence and have complicated histories with one another, showed more skepticism of diversity. This was also true, to a lesser extent, in China and Kyrgyzstan. There were similar trends in parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

One guy on face book today described this as the cartography of bullshit and I am inclined to agree. The Washington Post then produced another map showing ethnic diversity in nations around the world. 

What the hell ethnic diversity has to do with race is the obvious question. Interestingly the DR Congo is one of the most ethnically diverse in the world where as Australia is ethnically homogeneous.

  African countries are the most diverse. Uganda has by far the highest ethnic diversity rating, according to the data, followed by Liberia. In fact, the world’s 20 most diverse countries are all African. There are likely many factors for this, although one might be the continent’s colonial legacy. Some European overlords engineered ethnic distinctions to help them secure power, most famously the Hutu-Tutsi division in Rwanda, and they’ve stuck. European powers also carved Africa up into territories and possessions, along lines with little respect for the actual people who lived there. When Europeans left, the borders stayed (that’s part of the African Union’s mandate), forcing different groups into the same national boxes.

The problem then becomes not an issue of race but ethnicity or more simply apples being compared with oranges. I can assure you New Zealand is far more racially diverse than the DR Congo. When it comes to ethnic diversity we are middling. 

Batshit crazy ? 

Decent Kiwi woman cruelly humiliated

The Telegraph reports

Guilty of racism, the woman who called a Kiwi a fat Aussie

Calling someone Australian ruled by a court as a racist insult after a neighbour mistakenly abused New Zealander during drunken row.

                                             Petra Mills

For an antipodean to be called a "stupid fat Australian" is clearly very insulting. Worse still if they happen to be a New Zealander.

That was exactly what happened when Czech–born Petra Mills unleashed a drunken tirade against her neighbour, Chelsea O'Reilly, in Macclesfield, Cheshire, in September.

This is just terrible, there is no worse insult  possible than being accused of being an Australian except perhaps being called a fat Australian from a New Zealanders perspective.

The matter may have gone no further, except that it was witnessed by police, and Mills, 31, found herself arrested for racially aggravated public disorder, a charge upheld by Macclesfield magistrates yesterday.

It is good to see the British police taking a stand against racism against New Zealanders.

The court heard that Mills had herself phoned police after a domestic dispute with her husband, Michael.

Following his arrest, Mills unleashed the stream of vitriol when she saw Miss O'Reilly, her neighbour of 18 months and a British/New Zealand dual national, providing a witness statement to police.

Miss O'Reilly told the court: "She called me a stupid fat Australian b––––. Because of my accent there can be some confusion over my nationality. She knew I was from New Zealand.

Absolutely no mitigating circumstances here at all she clearly knew that Miss O'Reilly was a Kiwi.

"She was trying to be offensive. I was really insulted. She said she would kill my dog. Bizarrely she then blew raspberries at me like a child."

The two police officers who responded to the initial report of a domestic dispute told the court that they had heard Mills use the word "Australian" during her drunken rant.

Mills, who told the court the row had been caused by the stress of an impending house move, said: "Yes, I shouted at her but it had nothing to do with racism.

"I did not use the word Australian. I used to live with an Australian person. She was very nice."

Clearly Mills is a habitual liar. A " nice Australian " there is no such beast.

Trevor Feehily, for Mills, said the offence was motivated by Mills's anger at O'Reilly "snooping" and not her nationality.

Chairman of the bench Brian Donohue said: "The word Australian was used. It was racially aggravated and the main reason it was used was in hostility."

It is excellent to see the court endorsing the fact that Australians really are the worlds third class citizens. Americans are of course the worlds second class citizens.

Mills, who has since moved to the Isle of Eriska in Scotland with her husband, also admitted assaulting an officer by kicking him in the shin.

She was fined £110 for racially aggravated public disorder and £200 for assault. She must pay her victims £50 compensation and £500 court costs.

Fairly sure that Petra Mills is not Czech but actually an Australian.

It's called fishing not catching

FIS report 

Compensation could persuade Sanford to leave Ross Sea

Sanford, the same company that developed the NZD 50 million (USD 40.7 million) toothfish fishery in the Ross Sea 14 years ago, announced that it would consider withdrawing from it provided sufficient compensation is granted.

That is hilarious they want the New Zealand taxpayer to pay them not to fish.  What I assume they mean by developing a fishery is contributing to the scientific research to determine the sustainable catch levels. Throwing a trawl net over the back of the trawler when the fish finder tells you you are over a school of fish is not developing a fishery.

The firm revealed its decision on TV3’s Firstline as 25 countries met in Hobart to discuss the protection of the pristine Ross Sea in Antarctica.

Sanford said it helps monitor the Ross Sea for illegal fishing.

“Our boats have up to 200-mi radar coverage of the areas where it's operating and we're able to report on activities of other vessels,” said Sanford managing director Eric Barratt, 3 News reports.

Yeah that is the equivalent of calling the police when you find someone is burgling you house.

Now, Sanford said it would be willing to leave the Ross Sea -- for a price.

“We developed the fishery,” Barratt stated. “We've put a lot of money, a lot of effort and a lot of development into it and if somebody wants to come along and buy us out of the fishery, then they should approach us and do so.”

What a load of shit. Sealord are exploiting at a cost a resourse that belongs to the people of New Zealand. It pays a license to do so and contributes to research on the fishery.

He said that it would cost “a large sum, a very large sum” for the company’s ships to leave the area.
 

No it would not it would not. It would require the Ministry of Primary Industries to revoke Sealoards licence.

While green groups responded positively, they believe Sanford should withdraw from the Ross Sea -- without any compensation.
 

If the toothfish is being harvested in a sustainable way why on earth would New Zealand want Sealord to not catch them. The Greens are truly bat shit crazy. This of course is the crux of the story, some bat shit crazy Greens want to stop commercial fishing that earns New Zealand around two billion dollars a year.

“That's what we think is a bit cheeky,” said Karli Thomas of the Antarctic Ocean Alliance (AOA). “The fishing industry doesn't, and never will, own the Ross Sea, so it's not the responsibility of New Zealanders or the citizens of the world to buy it back off the fishing industry.”
 

Correct but the Ross sea is in out territory and if we wish to exploit it then we should be free to do so as long as we do so sustainably.

Earlier this year, the AOA’s 'Ross Sea' report called for 3.6 million sqkm in this region to be fully protected. The AOA is calling on members of the 

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to take advantage of this opportunity to establish unprecedented marine protection in the Southern Ocean.

As far as I am concerned the AOA can fuck off.


'The Last Ocean' filmmaker Peter Young said this announcement has opened the door for New Zealand to push for full protection of the region.

“There's far more value in the Ross Sea as an intact marine ecosystem than just another fishing ground,” he added.

This week, New Zealand tabled a proposal, which Sanford supports, at an international meeting in Hobart that would protect a determined area. However, this proposal excludes an unprotected area where fishing for toothfish would still be allowed.

The reality is that Australia and New Zealand call the shots on this and we will look after our interests and that means a viable sustainable fishery going forward. We are the best at the world at sustainable fishing.


The US tabled another proposal that provides more protection in the Southern Ocean, and which Sanford opposes.

Still, the AOA claims that both proposals are too weak, and at this late stage it is unlikely that all 25 countries will reach consensus.

“It’s vital that New Zealand comes to this negotiation with an open mind. Even the current United States proposal provides fishing opportunities for New Zealand and other fishing nations in the south of the Ross Sea region,” said Campbell. “A hard-line stance aimed at protecting New Zealand’s fishing interests at all costs will likely bring a failure of Ross Sea protection at this meeting.”

Well no. After the New Zealand Navy has sunk a few illegal fishing boats  the message will get out. In case the world failed to notice our navy has been reconfigured to give it this capability.

The Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) HMNZS OTAGO and WELLINGTON deliver substantial new capability to the Royal New Zealand Navy. The ships can go further offshore, stay at sea longer, and conduct more challenging operations than the Inshore Patrol Vessels, and will enable the RNZN to conduct patrol and surveillance operations around New Zealand, the southern ocean and into the Pacific.

The OPV’s are capable of many roles including maritime patrol, surveillance and response. They have the ability to conduct helicopter operations using a Seasprite SH2G helicopter, boarding operations using the ships Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats, or Military Support Operations with embarked forces.

The OPV’s have strengthened hulls which enable them to enter southern waters where ice may be encountered. They are not designed as ice-breakers or to enter Antarctic ice-packs, but have the range and capability to undertake patrols in the southern ocean where ice may be encountered.

The ships are highly automated and operate with a core crew of 35, plus 10 flight crew to operate a helicopter. The ships power and control systems are fully computerised.

New Zealand will act in our interests and the interests of Australia. We will not be dictated to by a bunch of hollier than thou Greens.

 

Rwanda. Read it and weep

Blogger Willis Shalita is happy, very happy, infact I would go so far as to say insanely happy. 

RWANDA ELECTED TO THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL.

Posted on October 18, 2012 | 3 Comments

Rwanda has been overwhelmingly been elected to sit on the U.N. Security Council for the next two years.

By a vote of 148 out of 193 members of the U.N., Rwanda joins this crucial world body. NO OTHER AFRICAN COUNTRY CONTESTED RWANDA’S BID.

Actually on this and this alone I think Shalita might be right. The official UN record disagrees giving the first round result as.

First Round Voting Results

African and Asia-Pacific States
Number of ballot papers:	193
Number of invalid ballots:	0
Number of valid ballots:	193
Abstentions:	1
Number of Members present and voting:	192
Required majority:	128
Number of votes obtained by country:
Rwanda	148
Republic of Korea	116
Cambodia	62
Bhutan	20
United Republic of Tanzania	3
Democratic Republic of the Congo	1

From the UN results we could legitimaly make the assumption that both the DR Congo and Tanzania had stood for the African seat. Had that been the case then there is no way in the world Rwanda would have won outright on the first ballot, The DR Congo would have attracted many Francophille votes and Tanzania would have likewise recieved Commonwealth votes. Rawanda is a member of the Commonwealth  as well joining in 2009. From Wikipedia

" Gained ( Rwanda ) independence from Belgium on 1 July 1962. The second country (after Mozambique) to be admitted to the Commonwealth without any former colonial or constitutional links with the United Kingdom."

The Britsh Empire might have faded away but if Tanzania was running for a seat it would have carried the Commonwealth vote in a show down with Rwanda.  So while I agree with Shalita, I would suggest he has failed to understand the import of no other African nation contesting the African Security Council seat. 

Others elected include Argentina, Australia, South Korea and Luxembourg.

Off the subject a bit but it was great to see the Australians get on although it will complicate our New Zealand 2016 attempt. On that note the Australian achievement running against Luxembourg and Finland and winning through on the first ballot with 140 votes, puts  Rwanda's " overwhelming " result against no opposition firmly into perspective as very pedestrian, that 45 countries didn't vote for Rwanda out of 193 when they had no alternative puts the result into perspective and probably explains why the official UN figures are such a dogs breakfast. 

The implications of Rwanda’s election cannot be minimized. This is a vote of confidence in our leadership and governance, and President Kagame deserves our admiration and respect for having steered us thus far.

Well I have just minimised it with out having to go to too much effort. It is infact a sad inditement on both Rwandan leadership and governance, unfortunatly it is also an inditement on the judgement of the many nations that did vote for Rwanda including I suspect New Zealand I haven't managed to run that information to ground yet.

This cannot be good news to our detractors. The DRC made some under the table noises to Rwanda’s bid but it fell on deaf ears. How long can lack of leadership in the DRC be blamed on Rwanda?

Now from this point on Shalita  Willis, lets call him Willis, goes  from very happy to insanly happy  bat shit crazy. " The DRC made some under the table noises ?" 

You mean the DR Congo said it didn't support the Rwandan bid I assume, the DRC said that quite publically, unlike a significant number of UN member states who couldn't bring themselve to hold their noses and vote for Rwanda, so didn't say anything and didn't vote for Rwanda.

Funny how people distort the truth, yes Willis I am talking about you but not only you. With regard to the DR Congo leadership I have critised it often as have many observers both within and outside the DR Congo none of us hold Rwanda accountable for the mistakes Kinshasa has made. We hold however Kilgali and the administration of President Kagame directly responsible for the situation in the eastern DR Congo and you Willis, you might well ask what I hold you responsible for well Willis I hold you and your ilk responsible for Louise and that seems only fair.

I guess that the human face of Rwandas action in the eastern DR Congo is something that doesn't concern you. But you Willis and your nation will be held accountable for this. 

Human Rights Watch (HRW) – or HATE RWANDA WICKEDLY – has egg on their face. Philippe Bolopion, UN Director of the New York-based campaign group wimply complained about Rwanda’s election, but nobody is listening. HRW has annoyingly tried to elevate their stature by demonizing our leadership and minimizing our achievements. Who made them boss of us, I ask?

Your wrong Willis the world is listening. The eyes of the world are watching Rwanda and that should scare the crap out of you. Don't for a second think that we weren't watching you yesterday Your leadership is being demonised by far more than HRW nobody is minimising the havoc Rwanda has achieved in the DR Congo  you see Willis it is personal.

Today is a great day for Rwanda. To our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Louise Mushikiwabo, under whose office the task of Rwanda’s election fell, I say, JOB WELL DONE. You make us proud.

Now as far as comedy goes this is Willis at his best Louise Mushikiwabo is a joke on Wednesday she said.

The Government of Rwanda is set to pursue legal action against a United Nations-appointed Group of Experts that has accused Rwanda of fermenting dissent and political chaos in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo.

Now given that that group of experts reports directly to the UN Security Council her only option is at an employment law level is to take legal action against the Security Council if that isn't enough comedy enough for you I can't for the life of me figure out what court she plans to litigate this in. I look at this issue in the Mushikiwabo link above.

 
In spite of attacks from all corners, the truth has prevailed, and Rwanda’s record speaks for itself. Much has been achieved. But, the job just begun.

The truth is something Willis you wouldn't recognise if it bit you on your arse.