National "Chop A Tree Day" - July 1
Important announcement to all land owners.
G'day Agmates,
Following is a press release from CPPA - Commonwealth Property Protection Association. Opposite is Peter Spencer, a farmer from Southern NSW who is currently fighting 2 cases in the High Court and 2 in the Federal Court on behalf of Australian farmers and citizens.
Click here to read CPPA's update on these court actions on behalf of Australian Farmers.
_______________________________________________
NATIONAL "CHOP A TREE DAY" - July 1st (Civil Disobedience Planned by Australian farmers.
Metaphorically speaking, the “Chop a Tree Day” delivers a sharp response directly to Governments who usurp their Constitutional limited authority.
Over recent times, the politically expedient have treacherously Tampa-d with the inherent and Constitutionally settled principles surrounding Crown LAND RIGHTS and have tossed overboard, the most basic and fundamental historical freehold land use known to civilised law.
Currently, the Commonwealth Property Protection Association has four cases before jurisdiction in the New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Supreme and Federal Courts, where overall, Government defendants have, on each legitimate appeal, perpetually moved “to strike out” – [that the argument not be heard] no less than twenty times.
In metaphorically “Chopping a Tree” what the CPPA is drawing attention to is, that clearly, the all powerful, tyrannical Governments have abused and misrepresented the Freehold System and appear equally determined to deny the common people the due process of providing them their day in COURT.
If the apparent influence of contemporary governing tyranny is such, that the common people cannot be heard in the civilised area of the Court, then metaphorically speaking, we must reclaim our land rights from the fascist dictators and “chop” out all repugnant legislation, which now overrides the lawful Grown-registered approval constitutionally intended to remain with whoever holds the deeds.
Unless freehold law is reclaimed the civilised society as we know it will disappear.
Land rights belong to the people with the Private investment. Freehold is the greatest generator of wealth known to man. We need more freehold land then 14% - not less.
Join this struggle against those who are trying to have freehold rights abolished see the papers produce by the Australia Institute - say no to this loss of your inherited rights.
Freehold land has an 800 year old tradition, Freehold Crown system is the oldest land right law known in history, stand up and protect this fundamental part of our civilised society - demand more freehold land not less. Stop the States attempt to usurp our land.
Despite their bluff, Parliament CANNOT legislate away the Crown-registered existing approval of that property investment right intended to provide a continuing use of whichever development the zoning of the freehold permits.
The primary, unrestricted, none – discretionary Agricultural use of any Freehold ( as the singular parcel of Land is defined in the Real Property Act and transferred through conveyance to the Landowner ) is consistently identified in all Local Government Rural Zonings for Rate and Taxing purposes.
We own our vegetation; it is ours to do with as we wish; and there is no other alternative now left to us.
Support our National Chop a Tree day.
Show the Nation, Democracy is alive and well, exercise your right do not let tyranny rule - join the civil disobedience program.
Your freedom is only guaranteed buy your preparedness for eternal vigilance.
Demand more freehold land form your duly elected member NOT LESS.
FIGHT BACK
CPPA
Perpetual Guardians, of Australia’s Secure Property Rights
___________________________________________________
Cheers,
Your Agmate - Steve
AGMATES - 100% Pro Australian Farmers
11 comments:
You greedy monsters make me sick.
We have precious little scrub left and if you had your way there would be none...I hope you get nothing..
Dear Anonymous,
Your comment that there is very little scub left tells me that you live in the city. It is based on ignorant opion, let me give you a couple of facts to consider before you verbal Australian farmers again.
QLD is the second largest state in Australia and in area is 1,852,642 square kilometres. Of that 81% or one and a half million square kilometres is covered in Scrub.
Only 10% of the land in the world is cleared for farming.
The house you live in, the street you drive down the suburb you live in was all once scrub.
All the food you eat my friend is produced off "cleared land". The cotton clothing you wear is produced off cleared land, the milk, eggs, bread and cheese you eat is all produced off cleared land. The wine or beer you drink is produced off cleared land.
So my friend have you way and let all of the scrub grow back - just be prepared to live in a forest as a hunter, gatherer living as the Aboriginals or native American India did 200 years ago.
Your hatred of the very people who produce the food you eat and the clothing you wear is curious.
Where does that come from - I'd be interested to know?
Bullshit mate, about half of the mature tropical forests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1.5 to 1.6 billion hectares that once covered the planet have been felled. Since about the mid 1800s the Earth is experiencing an unprecedented rate of change of destruction of forests worldwide. Unless significant measures are taken on a world-wide basis to preserve them, by 2030 there will only be ten percent remaining with another ten percent in a degraded condition. 80 percent will have been lost and with them the irreversible loss of hundreds of thousands of species
It can take a tree hundreds of years to grow and establish itself in an ecology and in one day you're destroying that. You say you are a farmer or a person fighting for farmers, people of the land, then why harm the land that feeds and supports you?
I beg you, think beyond your self interest to the interest of your children and not your pockets of land. The planet is here to be shared by all, regardless of right or government, so please, dont take part in this childish protest!
I struggle to understand how seemingly well educated businessmen can think that this sort of protest will help them with their cause? All you are doing is making ALOT of people angry and losing their respect. Your "chop a tree" day will not help you...for the sake of your children having trees to climb in and for the sake of our national pride, reconsider your actions or you'll go down in history as one more narrow minded, backwoods hick australian, just like Pauline Hanson did.
Agmates, you cite many examples of the land "feeding us" various products, but at what cost to the topsoil and native australian environment? Alot of outdated european farming practices are still all over our land, destroying the topsoil and eroding the small amound of arable land we have here. Please dont cite those examples as justification for destroying even more of our ecology, you look like a hypocrite in my opinion.
Im no expert, but from the outside looking in, like most of the public, this protest looks driven by self interest at the detriment to the country and environment and you will garner little support and fewer friends by going through with it.
Please reconsider.
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you both for taking the time to respond.
You have to ask yourself why are farmers resorting to cutting down trees as a form of civil disobedience? Because they are redneck, environmental vandals, greedy monsters, infadels who left unchecked will destroy the planet?
Perhaps we should have a jihad on every Australian farmer.
No they are resorting to "Civil disobedience" the Vegetation Management Acts in each State of Australia is not only a threat to their lively hoods and way of life but to our (your) very liberal democracy.
Why has this happened? Let me give you both a brief extract of the work of Learned Professor Suri Ratnapala of the University of QLD (UQ)in a paper he wrote (I'll publish this in a full article soon)
"CONSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM UNDER GREEN COVER"
Australia is called the Lucky Country, but luck has played only a small part in the country's success. The conversion of resources into wealth requires capital, technology, enterprise and hard work. People do not invest in wealth creating activity when the risks are too high and the returns too low. Risks increase when the law is unpredictable and property rights are insecure.
The success of Australia's primary industry sector owes much to the relative stability of property rights and contractual certainty secured by what the great Scottish philosopher David Hume called the "three fundamental laws concerning the stability of possessions, translation by consent and the performance of promises".1 These laws are maintained by the strength of the Constitution and the eternal vigilance of the people.
This essay discusses a new threat to constitutional government and property rights in Australia that has arisen out of what is in principle a worthy and necessary program in public policy, namely environmental protection. The threat arises not from the aim itself, but from the flawed processes by which environmental policies and laws are determined and implemented. These processes not only subvert constitutional principles but also admit bad science.........
It is impossible to survey within a brief essay the complex and ever growing environmental regulatory regime in Australia. Hence I will focus my attention on one piece of legislation that typifies all that is wrong and dangerous about recent trends in environmental protection law in this country. The legislation I examine is Queensland's Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) which applies to all freehold and non-freehold lands in Queensland. This law reflects a regulatory model that is becoming the standard in Australia. In searching for an illustrative case of a statute that comprehensively defeats the values of constitutional government, in particular the rule of law, democratic principle and the basic requirements of natural justice, one need look no further than this Act.
WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION AND WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT?
Constitutional government, or government under law, is a remarkable achievement of modern civilization, but it has been gained at a great price. Constitutional government enthrones the rule of law in the sense of the supremacy of known, general and impersonal laws over rulers and subjects alike. Millions of people around the world have died in the establishment and defence of constitutional government. This is not an exaggeration when the human cost of the 17th Century constitutional struggles in England, the American Revolution, the Civil War, the two World Wars, the uprisings against Fascist and Communist rule, and present day democracy movements are accounted. Constitutional government is hard to win but not so hard to lose. It is always under pressure from seen and unseen opponents.
ENDOGENOUS THREATS TO CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT
Liberal democracies face two common kinds of internal threat to constitutional government. The first arises from welfare politics. Under current electoral systems, special interest groups seek, and political aspirants offer, benefits that very often can be delivered only at some cost to constitutional government. Apart from direct wealth transfers through the tax system, governments pursue distributional goals through various forms of regulation, such as fair trading and consumer protection laws, competition laws, wage and price fixing, and the myriad licensing schemes. These regulatory devices confer wide discretionary power on officials that seriously derogate from the ideal of government under known and general law that lies at the heart of constitutionalism. This kind of threat, though serious, is manageable, as it is possible to convince people that the short term gains they seek cause more harm than good in the longer term. The worldwide trend to economic liberalization started by Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Roger Douglas, and now driven also by the forces unleashed by liberalized world markets, is evidence of this reversal.
The more serious threat to constitutional government arises from fundamentalism of various kinds. I do not mean, by fundamentalism, deep conviction about a particular worldview, philosophy or faith, whether that be Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or secularist. I employ the term "fundamentalist" to describe a person who not only has an unshakeable conviction in the rightness of his position, but also thinks that his view is so compelling and uncontestable that any competing view must be silenced, if not by persuasion, then by subtle coercion or brute force.
.........The 13th Century churchmen who ordered and carried out the Inquisition were fundamentalists. The Marxists who pursued the goal of the Communist utopia at the cost of lives and liberties of many millions were fundamentalists. The Fascists who, following Hegel, deified the state as the ultimate good, were fundamentalists. The Al Qaeda terrorist group, and similar groups who wage holy war against infidels, are fundamentalists.
There is a new fundamentalism that threatens the liberal constitutional order. It is Green fundamentalism. I do not mean by Green fundamentalism, genuine concern about the environment, and the desire to seek rational, balanced and scientifically sound solutions to environmental problems. Rather I refer to the growing intellectual movement that espouses a particular vision of the natural world, and relentlessly pursues the realization of that vision by legal and illegal means, where necessary by overriding the most fundamental rights and liberties of the citizen. It is vocal in the advocacy of its point of view and insensible to other views. It has been spectacularly successful in elevating its message to the position of a faith that others may not question without being branded anti-social. It has skewed public discussions in a way that has stifled opposing views.
I am not suggesting that the issues that environmentalists raise are trivial. This debate is not about the need to protect the environment, but about rational responses to the problems. It is estimated, for example, that the total cost of global warming could be as much as US$ 5 trillion. Yet, as Bjorn Lomborg in his much reviled but unrebutted book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, points out, some of the solutions suggested could cost the world trillions, and even tens of trillions, of dollars over and above the global warming cost.5 This is money that, in the form of investment, could raise billions of people out of poverty and drive their societies to levels of prosperity that make environmental improvements affordable.
Lomborg is no libertarian capitalist ideologue. He is a left leaning statistician whose thesis is uncompromisingly grounded in data that even WWF, Greenpeace and the Worldwatch Institute largely accept. When he speaks of the bias in the environmental debate, it is worth listening. He asks why global warming is not discussed with an open attitude but with a fervor befitting preachers. He thinks that the answer is "that global warming is not just a question of choosing the optimal economic path for humanity, but has much deeper, political roots as to the kind of future society we would like".6 I cannot but agree.
THE MAIN CONCERNS
Environmental law is one of the fastest growing areas of the legal system. It comprises a vast body of statute law that includes Acts of Commonwealth and State Parliaments, subordinate legislation in the form of regulations, orders and decrees, and case law interpreting these provisions. There are rising concerns within primary and manufacturing industries, as well as scientific and legal communities, that the processes of environmental policy formulation and implementation are leading to outcomes having seriously negative impacts on individual producers, industries, local and national economies, civil liberties, the rule of law and on sustainable environmental protection.
In its August, 2004 Report on The Impacts of Vegetation Management and Biodiversity Regulations, the Productivity Commission acknowledged the validity of many of these concerns, and made recommendations that in effect require the radical re-evaluation of the philosophy and processes of environmental regulation in Australia. The Commission's report highlighted the following serious defects in the current regulatory system:
* Lack of cost-benefit assessments before regulations are made, and the absence of on-going monitoring and independent reviews of costs and benefits once the regulations are in operation.
* The poor quality of data and science on which native vegetation and biodiversity policy decisions are based.
* Inadequate use of the extensive knowledge of landholders and local communities in the formulation of policy and regulations.
* The failure to take account of regional environmental characteristics and agricultural practices in imposing across-the-board rules, particularly in relation to native vegetation regrowth.
* Serious impediments to private conservation measures, including tax distortions and regulatory barriers to efficient farm management.
* The imposition on landowners of the cost of wider conservation goals demanded by society........
CONCLUSION
The VMA was supposed to combat environmental vandalism, but its provisions have vandalized Australia's cherished constitutional principles. The principles that have been sacrificed are not merely principles of constitutionalism and justice, but also of good governance. Parliamentary scrutiny and public discussion of delegated legislation, natural justice and procedural fairness, evidentiary safeguards, and compensation for government takings militate against arbitrary and erratic government. All these precautions are subverted by the VMA.
The VMA epitomizes the current philosophy and methodology of environmental regulation in Australia. It is a model that is replicated at State and federal levels. It is not clear at all that these extraordinary regulatory schemes are benefiting Australian society. As discussed in this paper, there is a strong body of scientific opinion that challenges the utopian aspirations and the efficacy of this model to promote the health of the environment.
The reason why these dissenting voices are largely disregarded by governments, media and academia is not easy to fathom. It is possible that environmental fundamentalism has become endemic in these key sectors as a result of several decades of unchallenged proselytizing. It is also the fact that sober reflection is no match for apocalyptic alarmism in the contest for public opinion. Politicians follow the currents of opinion. Until public opinion is swayed to the cause of a more open and objective debate about conservation, we are unlikely to see a change in political will, and constitutional government in this country, and the well-being of Australian society, will remain in serious jeopardy.32
______________________________
Farmers don't want this fight, it has been foystered upon them, they unfortunatley are just at the front end of the battle against the Green Fundamentalism that threatens the very democracy we all love.
Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers
Steve, "Agmates",
The concerns that you quote from that report on how the government are dealing with environmental mangement seem valid and on that front, I agree. You are not alone of course, how the government regulates mental health, regional services, mens health issues vs female health issues, domestic violence and more recently aboriginal affairs, are done with sweeping generalisations that will be to the detriment of many. Hopefully not the majority, but to many, regardless.
So what are you trying to achieve with your chop a tree day?
You have problems with the way the government is regulating evironmental concerns...so you can:
a) highlight your concerns through mass media
b) show clear examples of how the regulations are unfair or...
c) clear old growth, protected trees and get the vast majority of the australian public angry at farmers....
hmmm...
okok, thats an oversimplification, but as I have stated already, for your own sake, please reconsider your goals and how you are trying to achieve them...this protest will not help you get the public on side It will not make environemental legislation a topic for the next election, and the government will not cave because you chop a few trees...
Bring these poorly provisioned legislations to the public, woo them to your cause and fight for better policy after the next election. You wont make any friends by cutting down protected trees unless you give more information to the public about what you are trying to achieve, and the mass media are more interested in sensationalising what you are doing than reporting the facts...surprise surprise...
Please, reconsider...This illegal felling of protected trees (as opposed to "civil disobedience" as you put it) will not help the plight of your farmers!
Agmates,
I would include myself as another citizen who now feels less sympathy to rural and pastoral Australia as a result of this action.
On this side of the country we are planting as many tree as possible due to land degradation left by clear felling practices.
Chop a Tree Down Day is as stupid as anything I've heard come out of the bush. A similar act of childish civil disobedience would be to leave all your taps and sprinklers running in protest of water restrictions.
Abandon this senseless campaign. If anything it will be counter productive and only get the public off side.
Given the current state of rural Australia, you need all the support you can get and felling trees out of principle won't help.
Mulgarat
i think that all members of agmates would be better off chopping thier own heads off , what a stupid lot they are , do they also think the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese , and i not a city folk but a green farmer who nurtures his land not rapes it !
Well, my farm has 40% boxwood forest to 30m high so can I speak with a little experience.
Basically I have more trees than I know what to do with, seedlings everywhere, native box, bark and some gum amongst my livestock over 1,500HA of rough country which provides a but a trace of the income it used to in my Father's day, say in the 60's ~ 80's even with just two people left doing all the work and the same number of dependant animals it ever had in a sustainable, organic system.
To avoid turning the place into housing with subdivision I need to have the rights to Carbon, this is fraud and I am very angry because at my age it's time to consider going, that is without the option to alternative income.
If this works 'anonymous' there will be much more forest, so don't worry you are on the wrong track antagonising the few people who provide the satiety we all know from a full stomach.
One day that may not be possible, remember it only takes three hours to become hungry, unless you want to eat Chinese produce flown in from forced labour camps by air liners and all the carbon consequences of that ridiculous trade.
Of course Treasurer Costello summed up Rural Australia on Radio National Breakfast the day after the Budget,
Fran. “and the drought, what did that cost the economy?”
Costello. “oh, only 1½% downturn in the G.D.P”
Says it all really for the significance of country people when a leader speaks like that.
As a responsible property owner, I am shocked and disgusted by your actions.It is hard to believe that in this day and age of environmental awareness, you are promoting this kind of stupid protest. If you cannot repsponsibly care for your land, then I suggest that you find another vocation as you and your cohort obviously do not deserve to have any part of our fine nation to care for. Shame on you, you give farmers and all landholders a bad name. I pity you.
Something for Sunday 1st blogger. It would be great if we could just explain to the general public the theft of our property rights and diminishing land values as a result of this crappy legislation and have people respond with some positive or helpful action to restore those rights but it just isnt happening. A group of us have spent 12 years talking to the government and working with a succession of dickhead beauracrats, investing in excess of 5000 unpaid hours trying to get a resonable outcome only to have the goalposts moved each time we get close.
We passed the hat around and spent more than $130K, we couldn't really afford,on media to get the infomation out there. That seemed to work pretty well on the educational side but the response was always "Oh gee, thats no good, somebody should do something about that", and then go on with their life.
Asking to have whats rightfully ours returned to us has been tried for more than a decade in NSW and is not working so now we are just taking it back.
If scrub is so valuable to Mulgarat, buy it,there's 1000s of hectares of Mulga scrub in western NSW, alot of it for sale and he/she will get no arguement from anyone.
Friday 6th blogger most likely has a property that somebody has already cleared and ignorantly masquerades as an environmentalist. Pull your head in you peanut!
Post a Comment