To understand the ‘Big Picture’ about why Jacintha Saldanha died, it is necessary to understand that for some people, the “Lucky Country” has been anything but lucky. The Covert Holocaust outlined in the previous postings may seem to be a work of fiction, but the shocking reality is that for the down-trodden, Australia has always been a very, very dangerous place. For those without ‘situational awareness’ it was, and still can be, just as potentially a lethal an environment as living, or camping, in wilderness areas of Botswana can be. Just as the lions don’t care who they kill to survive, so it is with Australia’s most dangerous predators.
The only difference is that in Australia, the worst predators wear suits!
BEYOND “ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE – An Absence of Justice.”
What you are about to read is beyond “Absolutely Incredible”, but if you are genuinely concerned about the tragic cascading train of events that pushed Jacintha Saldanha “over-the-edge” and resulted in her death, then you need to get your mind around these issues for they are essentially the “big picture” background reasons for why 2Day FM management decided that it would be ‘okay’ to humiliate the Queen who was not perceived as a person with feelings and emotions but rather as simply ‘a commercial opportunity’ to gain some great ratings. Unfortunately, Jacintha was in the firing line and she paid the ultimate price as a consequence.
When people in positions of power, (either political or commercial), or who are influential, self-righteous Moral Majority Morons, cease to see individuals as people and instead de-value them and only see these people as objects that are ‘only’ worthy of contempt, then nasty things are inevitable for the targets of that scorn. In Australia, nasty things have been happening to targeted minorities ever since European settlers arrived from Britain on January 26th, 1786.
“It’s so big… Example #1 – Australia’s 1st Holocaust.)
- In 2010, the (then) Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, apologized to the survivors of the “Stolen Generation” for having been legally stolen from their families.
- These people were the survivors of Phase II of a deliberate attempt to wipe out Australia’s aboriginal population that began when white settlers arrived in the 1st Fleet in 1786.
- At school in the 1950’s I was taught that the aboriginal population was wiped out by the Common Cold.
- Proving the adage that it is the winners who get to write history, there was absolutely no mention of the poisoned water holes, the ‘gifts’ of typhoid infected blankets, night-time cattle stampedes, the deliberately set wild fires, no details of how whole families or even whole communities were thrown over cliffs (Elliston is South Australia), or the ‘Gentleman’s Hunts’ in which rabbits, foxes and “Boongs” were hunted.
- Boongs was a racist derogatory name for the native aborigines that ‘scientific experts’ had (conveniently) determined were ‘sub-human people’ and therefore “posed a threat to the purity of the human race”.
- If that idea sounds somewhat familiar, it should be, because Adolf Hitler based his “Life unworthy of life” anti-Jewish propaganda campaign on this idea and as we all know, 10 million Jews died in concentration camps as a result of this mass media delivered campaign!
- Within 100 years, approximately 90% of Australia’s traditional landowner aboriginal population had been, like pests, eradicated!
- The intention behind the “Stolen Generation” legislation that the various Australian colonies introduced in the 1870s and 1880s was to breed the aboriginal population out of existence!
- Little is known in Australia about this holocaust simply because schools still do not teach it in any substantial detail and, in a clear parallel with the concealment of breaching triggered fatalities, the mass media avoids any specific references to this shocking part of Australia’s history whenever possible.
“It’s so big… Example #2 – The High Court’s Mabo Decision.
- Incredibly, it was not until Eddie Mabo and some other aboriginal people fought a 10-year-long case in Australia’s High Court that the High Court finally acknowledged that the 1770s decision by the British Government that Australia was “Terra Nullius”, i.e. “an empty land”, was in fact wrong!
- It took 206 years before the High Court would finally acknowledge the glaringly obvious fact that Australia already had a large, dispersed indigenous population when the 1st Fleet arrived in 1786 and was most definitely not “Terra Nullius.”
- Can you believe that?
“It’s so big… Example #3 – The ‘Forgotten Children.’
- During World War 2 and the post-war period, thousands of young children, many of whom were orphans, were sent to Australia for their safety and care.
- Some safety! Some care!
- Forgotten and unmonitored by Australian child welfare authorities, many of these children were subjected to every kind of abuse possible, physical, sexual, emotional, or financial, e.g. ‘free’ child-labour. You name it, if there was a way that some foster carers could abuse some of these children, then that is what happened to children who were not placed with loving, compassionate carers!
“It’s so big… Example #4 – Sexually abused Wards of the State in foster care.’
- Next year, Australia is to have a Royal Commission into the ‘swept-under-the-carpet’ problem of the appalling abuse of children who were ‘Wards of the State‘ who were placed in either institutional foster care, e.g. state or church run orphanages, or were placed into home-based foster care.
- As with the ‘Forgotten Children’, far too many suffered absolutely appalling abuse that, when victims of this abuse reported it to child welfare authorities or to other responsible adults such as teachers, police, or clergy, they were simply ignored, or even scolded or punished for telling ‘lies’!
“It’s so big… Example #5 – South Australia’s officially kidnapped babies’
- On the 18th July 2012, South Australia’s newly appointed premier, Jay Weatherall, apologized to yet another section of the community for a shockingly dark and disgraceful period in South Australia’s history.
- There was a time not too long ago when newly born babies were forcibly removed from their mothers!
- For a 30 year period from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, Moral Majority Madness plunged community concepts such as Common Sense and Compassion to incredibly unbelievable, totally abysmal depths. Young, unwed women who gave birth to a child were automatically deemed to be “Unfit Mothers” and within hours, sometimes moments, of giving birth to a baby were coercively forced to sign away the child into the care of the State.
- Mothers who refused to sign the documents were sedated and then given the documents to sign! This was both a clear violation of contract law principles which invalidate contracts signed whilst affected by such drugs and also a major violation of the basic human rights contained in the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- If the mother’s still refused to sign the documents, then the babies were simply taken! That this disgraceful activity should be occurring as recently as the 1970s is testimony to the political power and influence of Moral Majority Madness in Australia.
- Never mind legal rights or human rights of the individuals involved; for politicians what counted was the votes to gleaned by giving the Mad Moral Majority (MMM) what they wanted. The fact that the MMM was in reality only a minor fraction of the Middle Class Majority was irrelevant for most of these voters are essentially apathetic and ill-informed and tended not to question government legislation unless it hurt their hip pocket nerve.
“It’s so big… Example #6 – Queensland’s infamous Dr Death. (Currently a ‘work in progress.” before the courts.)
Wikipedia has a very good summary of this absolutely incredible but true story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayant_Patel This webpage is a little out of date because on 24th August 2012, the Australian High Court overturned Dr Jayant Patel’s March 2010 conviction in the Queensland Supreme Court and he now facing a re-trial in 2013. (See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/patel/story-e6frg6n6-1226457333848 )
The basic facts are very much a matter of public record but in the nutshell they are as follows:
- After 4 of his patients died, the American Medical Association withdrew Dr Jayant Patel’s medical accreditation and withheld a criminal prosecution on the proviso that he never again practice medicine.
- Dr Patel subsequently moved to Queensland in Australia and successfully applied for the position of Director of Surgery at the Bundaberg Base Hospital.
- His surgical skills alarmed some of the theatre staff and as the death toll amongst his patients mounted, a theatre nurse, Toni Hoffmann, ‘blew the whistle’ on Dr Patel’s lethal surgical activities.
- She was ignored by Queensland Government ministers, Queensland Health Service officials, and apparently even the Queensland Police Service.
- For over a period of more than 2 years, the death toll and list of ‘walking wounded’ continued to rise until an Opposition MP raised questions in the Queensland Parliament.
- An investigative journalist, Hedley Thomas, looked into Dr Patel’s background and soon discovered that Dr Patel was a de-registered surgeon and that he had been appointed to the Bundaberg Base Hospital simply because there had been NO DUE DILGENCE background check to verify his credentials and resume.(A major stuff-up. No competent employment recruitment consultant would have over-looked such a basic precaution as the verification of work history!)
- The response of the Queensland Health Service to this discloser was to allegedly buy Dr Patel a one-way 1st class Qantas Airlines ticket back to the United States! (Unlike Dr Patel and the medical profession in general, the QHS could not bury its mistake.)
- The Queensland Government, Queensland Health Service and the Queensland Police were not too keen to have Dr Patel’s lethal surgical activities, and their failure to do anything about the rising fatalities made the subject of the court’s scrutiny and it was only after intense lobbying by families of the dead, and some of the survivors, that extradition proceedings was initiated.
- This was apparently also done in such an incompetent manner that the US Court judge hearing the application, in the presence of representatives of the US news media, roundly criticized the Queensland Governments extradition activities.
- Eventually, 4 inquiries into Dr Patel’s surgical activities identified 87 fatalities and another 106 patients who required major corrective surgery. One of the inquiries identified 16 possible cases that could possibly be re-classified as Unlawful Killings.
- In March 2010, Dr Patel was tried and convicted of 3 counts of Manslaughter and was sentenced to 7 years jail time, a penalty that caused outrage in Queensland.
It is my contention that the Patel Case is a crucial criminal case law precedent for Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes that the Department of Social Security, Centrelink, the Department of Employment and the Australian mass media, have never reported.
- What Dr Patel’s surgical triggered fatalities and breaching triggered fatalities share in common is the core fact that at the time of each death, none was considered an Unlawful Killing.
- The forensic analysis and reclassification of some the death’s that stemmed from Dr Patel’s surgical activities did not occur until the scale of the death toll became public and each fatality was carefully reviewed by a forensic expert.
- Forcing Centrelink to disclose the unreported post breaching fatalities statistics is the critical key to holding accountable the politicians and bureaucrats responsible for breaching triggered deaths.
Once there is public awareness of the scale of this death toll and the wall of official secrecy surrounding this death toll, any inquiry into these deaths will also be confronted with the role played by Australia’s mass media in not only concealing these deaths, but also in helping to drive up the death toll by deliberately demonizing and undermining the morale of people who were already emotionally ‘fragile’ due to the dual pressures created by unemployment and poverty.
That in turn will raise a plethora of other questions such as:
- Vilification by the mass media costs millions of dollars per year so a crucial question is, “To whom the benefit” from this deliberate campaign of vilification? (Perhaps Gina Rinehart would like to offer an answer to that question?)
- Why is it that socio-economic vilification of welfare recipients is lawful whilst all other forms of vilification by the mass media are prohibited?
- Why is the voluntary threshold level for unconscionable conduct set at EXTREME in self-imposed ‘codes of conduct’?
- Why do News Ltd editors and journalists consider acts of vilification to be legitimate “Freedom of speech?”
- Why does the ACMA support these codes at the expense of the Australian public to the extent that the vast majority of complaints against mass media transgressions are rejected?
- The question that both New Scotland Yard and the City of London Coroner should already be considering, is the role that this shoddy regulatory regime played in Jacintha Saldanha’s death.
- Perhaps the question that the whole world should be asking is why, over a period of decades, did the Queen’s representatives in Australia sign into law breaching legislation that was obviously unconstitutional and equally obviously, placed exceeding vulnerable people in extremely dire straits.
Does anyone really need a university doctorate to work out that when you deliberately deprive impoverished people of their only means of support for a period of 3 months so that they will be unable to meet even the most basic costs of living, then some people would die?
- Does anyone also need a university doctorate to work out that when you do that at a rate of 3 times per minute, lots of vulnerable people may die?
- So how do you explain why the Australian Parliament allowed this happen and the Australian Federal Police deliberately opted not to look at these fatalities?
The implication in the Governor-General’s signing unconstitutional breaching legislation into law is that the Queen of Australia must have also considered that welfare recipients were expendable people!
(Christian advocate of welfare justice.)
NOTE: The short-link URL for this blog is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-9J