Comments on Jordan Peterson and 'western civilisation' by Betty Luks

Dear John Roskam,
     I have just watched John Anderson’s interview with Jordan B. Peterson and want to bring to your attention some historical facts.  Facts which I don’t expect Jordan Peterson (a Canadian) to know about but I am sure you could easily recall if you have a mind to.

     But first, please, please.  Enough of the humbug from the mouths of so-called ‘leaders’ of this nation now brought to its knees!  And as for John Anderson... He should be hanging his head in shame and not using a visiting media celebratory to raise his profile.  To view him ‘tut tutting’ whilst recalling the atrocities committed by the Soviets in the Ukraine in the 1920-30’s and yet not seeing his own role in the centralisation of power in this nation just beggars belief!

     Whether centralisation of power leading to tyranny is brought about by physical force or legislation – it is still centralisation of power leading to tyranny.

On Target  11 July 2003 reads:
“RAINDROPS KEEP FALLING (IF YOU CAN AFFORD THEM)
Section 100 of the Constitution is nothing if not succinct:
"The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation."
That seems plain enough. No referendum of Australians has ever eliminated that clause. Then why do we read in The Weekend Australian (28-29/6/03: "John Anderson is … using a financial lever to develop a national water plan in cooperation with the States. The National Party leader is threatening to withhold competition dividends unless there is agreement on who pays compensation to farmers who lose water rights …."

Commonwealth financial blackmail is being used to overturn the Constitution.

Both government and private control over "the rain that falls on the just and the unjust" has already gone a long way. In New South Wales a new law which came in on July 1 allowed the separation of water titles from the land. New companies and banks are already offering loans to farmers with water titles as a separate security. The Australian Financial Review (16/5/03) said: "The new laws will also make it possible for a farmer to rent out his water rights but keep ownership of the land. Under the old rules you needed to sell the water (because the licence needed to be attached to land). Now you can go and live in a block of flats on the coast, still trade your water into that market, and keep the land …."
But banks already holding existing mortgages with farmers are fearful their security will diminish once water rights are uncoupled from the land. The article continued:
"… The banks were working through the first tranche of 10,000 water-attached mortgages in NSW in "a massive exercise to shore up those mortgages."

"Six days later The Australian Financial Review (22/5/03) reported: "Australia's first speculative water rights investment company was given approval by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission this week to launch a prospectus. The company, National Water Bank, hopes to raise more than $27 million to buy water licences in NSW, which last year rose more than 40 per cent in value. National Water Bank will be the first self-declared speculator to take advantage of the new Water Management Act 2000, which takes effect in NSW on July 1 as part of national water reform due to be ratified at the next meeting of the Coalition of Australian Governments in August. The agreement will make water rights a commodity that can be traded nationally to rationalize the use of water and steer it to its highest and best use. For the first time, water rights will not be attached to a parcel of land ….

Critics have argued that water trading would be hampered by the resistance of farmers and fears that entire communities would be left without water….."But, of course, debt-ridden farmers will have their ability to fight for their rights cut to pieces by the money lenders. Cunningly, lending institutions seeking ownership of water are offering lower interest loans to entrap farmers.
And, of course, this situation cannot be divorced from the approaching GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services. The current situation that water titles could only be traded nationally would be changed to internationally if Australia was foolish enough to enter GATS.

FORMER MAYOR SPEAKS OUT
With the above in mind, a statement by former Narrabri Mayor and grain farmer Bevan O'Regan deserves the closest attention of farmers throughout the nation:
"Mr John Anderson's statement in a recent publication describing his plans for National Water and his intentions to draw up a national water policy to go to the Council of Australian Governments (C.O.A.G.) is an affront to Common Law and each landholder's rights.

Firstly, John Anderson is a federal minister and should butt out of State matters.
Secondly, C.O.A.G. is an illegitimate body set up in 1990 by the then Labor government which has no more authority than a "think-tank."
Thirdly, and probably the most important point Mr Anderson should take on board, is that Section 6A of the Land and Valuation Act 1916 says quite clearly that "fee simple", which is an aggregation of a land-owner's right, says, "land and water cannot be separated".

It's about time people realized water cannot be traded from a farm because water below each farm boundary to the centre of the earth belongs to the land and not the land-owner. This is not the case with oil, gas, minerals or coal, but it is the case with water. Water, air, vegetation and soil make up a property right.

Mr Anderson gives recognition to the 1994 intergovernmental Agreement on Water (IAW). This again is another "think-tank" and, like COAG, should not in any way be given any credibility by any water user.

Mr Anderson said IAW should have offered compensation for water entitlements. We, as State landholders need to tell him that if we agree to any compensation to erode our rights in all our water, then we are agreeing to an immoral and unconstitutional plan.
Mr Anderson says, "it is time to fix the agreement concerning interstate water trading."

 He should read section 100 of the Federal Constitution which says:
"The Commonwealth shall not by any law or regulation of trade or commerce abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation".

If Mr Anderson is going to use the precedent of Bob Hawke's use of the High Court judgment in the Tasmanian Dams case, then the argument in this case is flawed. With unabated arrogance, there now is a prospectus to sell shares in water on the Stock Exchange using the National Water Bank Limited (CAN 102 723 777).
Thank goodness our forefathers had the sense to write a clause into the 1916 Land and Valuation Act to lock land and water together as a "stratum of one".

It is coincidental that Mr Anderson who, as Minister of Primary Industries, had a large role in setting up a company called "AWB Limited International" to relieve farmers of their right to manage their wheat industry is now at the cutting edge of an international company Water Bank to sell farmers water through the Stock Exchange.

Water is God's gift to the world, whether it goes into the streams as run-off or whether it filters into the aquifers as underground water, is of no consequence to the government. If any Local Council or private person accepts money as structural adjustment or as compensation, then they have in reality agreed to a plan to have governments, through legislation, steal their water.

The Federal Government must butt out now before civil disobedience (which under Common Law is quite legal) is exercised against the repugnancy of unconstitutional legislation." (end of article)”

As for the sweeping statement that the ‘Western World’ abolished the slave trade... Let us be more specific.

Wikipedia narrows it down to:
“The Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed in 1787 by a group of Evangelical English Protestants allied with Quakers, to unite in their shared opposition to slavery and the slave trade. The Quakers had long viewed slavery as immoral, a blight upon humanity. By 1807 the abolitionist groups had a very sizable faction of like-minded members in the British Parliament. At their height they controlled 35–40 seats. Known as the "Saints", the alliance was led by the best known of the anti-slave trade campaigners, William Wilberforce, who had taken on the cause of abolition in 1787 after having read the evidence that Thomas Clarkson had amassed against the trade.[3] These dedicated Parliamentarians had access to the legal draughtsmanship of James Stephen, Wilberforce's brother-in-law. They often saw their personal battle against slavery as a divinely ordained crusade. On Sunday, 28 October 1787, Wilberforce wrote in his diary: "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners."[4]....
The Bill was first introduced to Parliament in January 1807. It went to the House of Commons on 10 February 1807. On 23 February 1807, twenty years after he first began his crusade, Wilberforce and his team were rewarded with victory. By an overwhelming 283 votes for to 16 against, the motion to abolish the Atlantic slave trade was carried in the House of Commons.[3] The debate lasted ten hours and the House voted in favour of the Bill. The Bill received Royal Assent on 25 March 1807.[6]”