36 comments on “Chinese Militarism or American Propaganda: How Rational is the Idea of Free Tibet?

  1. yes,tibet should be free……..Lasha wants to becom an independent state with rights of self determination.And here rights of self determination should be accepted as Tibet is an independent country in the past.But now it is under China.

    DIVAS
    is it pragmatic dude?

  2. Tibet is free; hence, it’s not possible for it to be freed again.

    DIVAS

    r u a China Govt official? 🙂

  3. As long as the Han Chinese Communist cabal in Beijing is in power there is little hope that any sense, or even some semblance of accepted standards will prevail.
    Little hope of a let up of the oppression, racist subjugation and exploitation of Tibet and its hapless people.
    They will continue to plough their inane, by now well and truly hackneyed line, that Tibet was and always will be a part of China.
    It appears utterly impossible to elicit any reaction or response from this depraved cabal, which would resemble even just slightly a human trait.
    So calls for a dialogue, appeals for common sense, or restraint are falling, not on death ears, but will never even enter a mind that could possibly comprehend such rational behaviour.
    Of course there is never any mention of the fact that Tibet was exclusively populated by a completely distinct race with a unique culture and its own sovereign government before the Han Chinese Communist hordes invaded the country.
    The uprising must be seen in context of the most barbaric repression and subjugation of a people that were independent for millennia and have endured this tyranny for over 50 years without any letup.
    Nor has the world stood up for the victimized Tibetan people, or shown any sympathy, but in fact has tacitly approved of this heinous crime in order to pursue lucrative trade with the most populous nation on the planet.
    Every government has prostituted itself so as not to offend the tyrants in Beijing, for trade and the mighty $ is all that matters in this ‘modern day’ world.
    Forget about principals, ethics or morals, the suffering and genocide is someone else’s, and there is no oil there anyway.
    Realpolitik = Prostitution
    This is the 21st century and the year this regime is allowed to host the Olympics, an event that is supposed to be in the spirit of freedom, cooperation, friendship and harmony.
    But events all around China and particularly Tibet belie this illusion and the games must be a defining event for the oppressed people of Tibet.
    If only the so called “free press” would live up to this nomer and report the truth and facts about the Chinese atrocities in all its starkness.

    DIVAS

    i feel like saying something, but i’m speechless!

  4. The Tibetans need to be freed. Its been done before: ex-Soviet Republics, East timor etc.

    The Tibetans will achieve independence if they can maintain vibrancy, and a larger power like India or Japan is allowed to help them and take care of the Han Chinese expansion.

  5. I really don’t know this: how many countries recognize Tibet as an independent nation free from China?

    Why the people who look for business over their morality preach others on freedom?

  6. Tibet belongs to China and once was under Nepal.
    ठुला ठालु सधैं राम्रा, साना सधैं दास।
    दासताको पञ्जाबाट मुक्त हुने आस।।
    त्यही आसमा अल्झिएर छाडिहाले घर।
    सम्झनामा तड्पिरहन्छु खुशी कहाँ छ र।।
    अधुरा ति सपना सम्झी यहाँसम्म आको।
    आफ्नाबाट टाढा हुदा बल्ल चाल पाको।।
    कुरा बुझ्नु पहिले नै टाढा आई सकेछ।
    ट्रैन अब लिक छोडि पर गई सकेछ।।…

    यता उति हल्लिदैमा बैश ढलि गयो।
    चालिस बर्से यो जवानि त्यसै खेर गयो।।
    सबै खुसि सबै हाँसो भुल्नु पर्यो अहिले।
    ति दिनहरु बापस पाउन कति कुर्नु मैले।।
    पराइ ठाँउ पराइ माया जिउनलाइ गाह्रो।
    मेरै गाँउ मेरै ठाँउ मलाई सधै प्यारो।।
    बर्षातको झरि जस्तै बर्सिरहन्छ आँसु।
    पिर चिन्तामा डुबुल्किदै कसरि म हाँसु।।
    घर टाढा देश टाढा यो बिरानो ठाँउमा।
    यो कविता लेखे मैले मरै देशको नाँउमा।

  7. Deepak Bista exists as Tibetean dumpling house manager, he is hired by Ninje Sherpa, and has the audacity to say Tibet belongs to China.

    Deepak is known Chinese Communist agent in Nepal is now writes poems in Nepalese so that no one can understand.

    Well done Komrade

  8. I must admire the fraudulent claim of Darda Gregurev aka Anne Smith in the Devyani Rana aka Giakud blog. My cousin Maya Rajya Laxmi Paullete Rana has not and will not write about her own father. Why?

    Because, Ranjit Rana has a deed of settlement “The Age” Blog and Rupert Murdoch papers and e-forums. In case, Maya and Murdoch are in breach. I am sure Ranjit Rana will make millions of dollars via defamation action.

    I know this and the world will not believe “The Biggest Looser” Darda Gregurev.

    Cheers

    Maya Rana Tufo
    New York, USA.

    Maya Rana, on February 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 am Said:
    Noticed that Anne Smikth has some good points about Ranjit Rana – my so called “father” who has nbever been a fathe4r to me. He bas no claim on me. I have disliked him aned now hate him ever since I was old enough to be able to tell what kind of person he is. I have NOTHING TO DO with him. I want to cxontadct with him. It is RIDICUOLOUS that he thinks the TGREGUREVS are BLACKMAILING !!!! him!. HE is the blackmaile4r and stalker, cyb erstalker, liar, psychopath and total and absoolutely useless creature. I WANT NOTHING YTO DO WITH YOU RANA – LEAVE ME ALONE. I like Anne Smith and I am sorry for the GREGUREVS whom yo9u have pe4rsecuted for many years, evfer since I was a child. You are sick Rana Go grt help

  9. Ranjit Rana was sexually molested by a Jesuit (Catholic) priest in Nepal, called St. Xavier’s, Jawalakhel. Only recently the Pope Bennedict has wriiten apology to him. No one believed him in his childhood days and he was helpless and powerless. He was ot believed by his own parents and society, such was the power of the white priest from USA. One needs to look at the bankruptcy of the Catholics in USA paying compensation to former victims. Ranjit rebelled against the very society that oppressed hi,. He comes from liberal and most generous family of Ranas, who were librators of bonded slaves, donator of education and goes on the golden age of Nepal, when the seeds of modernity was launched by the late Maharaja Dev Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana (great great grandpa to Ranjit).

    Ranjit came to Australia only to be isolated by his ex-wife and her family almost like a sex slave, and his ex-wife had no loyalty to him, she was seeing the person she is married to now. Ranjit knew all along and had to leave her, and the ex-wife family took him to Whitlam era ‘no fault’ Family Court, and scoured injunctions that Ranjit was a violent person (he was in Australian Army), which caused him catastrophic damage of reputation and the former late and ex-mother-in-law inculated in the young brain of Maya Rana that her father might be a danger to her sexually as a predator, which was dutifully registered in the Australian Federal Police database that Ranjit Rana is a potential “homosexual” child pedarist?????

    Ranjit Rana learnt all by himself and excelled in Australian law and used anthropology to pursuade the Family Court about Nepalese fathers are duty bound like the workship of Kumaris or the Royal Oracles of Nepal as a symbol of all daughters.

    How can Ranjit be danger to any woman and his own daughter?

    Ranjit Rana did not know that when Maya Rana’s mother was getting remmaried that young Maya was having a separation anxiety reaction to that situation. Her mother never communicated this fact to ranjit, and he was not aware as to what was the problem, and so he commnced legal action and from there Maya Rana has cognitive dissonace with her alienated father.

    Now Maya Rana as a potentail allied worker ought to know that facts plus the tension between a migrant father and she as a first generation Australian would be in some cases inractable. However, Ranjit Rana always had respect for the best interest of his daughters like he always respected the Kumaris of Nepal.

    Anne Smith also known as Darda Gregurev are another item. The daughter a former mentally psychotic model wanted to marry Ranjit rana and refused as he has diabetes and paranoid schizophrenia materially and significantly contributed by his Australian Army service related abuses. He is likely to settle hefty compensation sson and all his dauthers will be taked care of. last time he paid Maya rana, her mother used all the money in legal costs to ward off access to Ranjit Rana.

    Ranjit Rana has seen and is in good terms with his daughters. I have seen maya’s photos Ranjit rana was with Maya Rana in Melbourne like in Lisa Ho’s stores in Melobourne CBD under the post office and before that when Maya Rana was working for ‘Good Girls Bad Girls.’

    Maya Rana is bit stuborn just like her dad but has temparament just like her late grandma the great poetess Rajya Laxmi Rana and so beautiful.

    Maya is not a psyhologist if she is not cognisant of “cognitive dissonance”. I am so gald that she is beautiful, intelligent and successful and ought to learn about her dad and what he did for survival with pride and hate.

    Maya Rana Tufo
    New York
    USA

  10. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ADELAIDE REGISTRY S200500033 RANJIT SHAMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA Applicant -and- REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION Professor Goldney did not like me. He has found fault in me as a dishonest character, which has made him look bad, and it is his chance of war against me. He has laid out the Bradford criteria of epidemiology and has not explained properly all of the relevant criteria so that my claim will fail not meeting each of those criteria. He only focused on two elements of them causality and temporality. He claims to have thrashed Professor Jha’s ‘latent homosexuality’ theory as a precipitating factor for my cause of paranoid schizophrenia to develop and further significantly contributed by my horrible Army life experience, because I had the predisposition in my character and related personality disorder as I understand. Thus, Professor Goldney’s causality criteria related inductive theory and assumptions could not satisfy this tribunal on the balance of probabilities taking into account of my past-spent conviction, truthful confession and no criminal convictions from 1983 to date. All others allegations are or have been made in civil matters and they are doubtful as the proceedings are continuing to overturn them. No one has been harmed or swindled by the applicant as alleged. Professor Goldney could not even remember the name of the tribunal that dealt with me for being dishonest. Lastly, Professor Goldney fails to account for how sufferers of asbestos cement inhalation long time ago develop lung disease defies this ‘sooner the cause better is the link with effect’ ‘longer the not credible’ convoluted theory of his. This insidious disease has been recognized then why late onset of paranoid schizophrenia cannot be recognized as part of my suffering. He has failed to provide adequate explanation by analogy or studies why this is not the case as part of the Bradford criteria. In sum, all evidence given by Professor Goldney is ‘normative statement’ (what ought to be), ‘subjective’, ‘prescriptive’ and ‘lacks the rigour of reasonable analysis’, ‘emotive’ and ‘not scientific’. Thus, he has failed in his own Bradford criteria in this matter, and the tribunal should give him zero or no weight as being of no substantial and probative evidential value in the decision making. It is prejudicial and unfair to me and it should be rejected totally. This is a ‘theoretical’ introduction to my relations with the world of reality as recorded by Emeritus Professor Doctor Bal Jha, a world renowned psychiatrist, who was head hunted and brought to Australia, and who has seen more migrants in Australia and minorities both in Australia and the world in a career spanning from 1955 to now. His experience related resume can be found in T-5 document ,which is the transcript dated 1/12/2004 at a hearing before Lander J of the Federal Court of Australia, action number SAD 67 of 2004 between Ranjit Rana and University of Adelaide and Ors. This has been identified as an exhibit in the current proceedings. See at pages 170 to 172 at lines 1 to 15, and again in this hearing dated 9/12/2008 at page 48 line 14 to page 49 to line 20. He has seen more patients in his life in big mental institutions of India, who suffered schizophrenia and other mental illnesses than Professor Goldney in his lifetime in terms of age seniority. He has more knowledge of epidemiology that concerns migrants and minorities than Professor Goldney, the very book Professor Goldney provided to this tribunal (now exhibit) the chapter 5 with many pages missing, which had more specific focus on Bradford criteria and associated elements of causality and effect, temporality and much more. I have not been allowed to recall Professor Jha to rebut Professor Goldney, as the tribunal made up its mind reminding me that the tribunal will be now ready to hear oral submissions in March next year. I was caught up by total surprise and could not respondent to such sudden finality of close of the hearing and no accommodation for rebuttals from me. Even the prior tribunals had recalled the experts to rebuttals. This has put me in a difficult position to rebut Professor Goldney’s allegations are that my symptoms are reconstructed after the events that occurred so long ago and lacks very credibility in asking for compensation. This juncture in time I have to rely that Professor Jha does not agree with Professor Goldney at all, and Professor Jha has seen all the materials in cursory glance whatever was provided to Professor Goldney by the Australian Government Solicitor plus much more materials I have provided to him over the years. I have provided to him all the criminal convictions, all issues with police, family courts and many courts, my ongoing problems with Chief of Army, hospitals, military pension, being declared bankrupt by Chief of Army and so much continuous problems of my mental and physical and emotional survival truthfully based on contrition and heartfelt confession. Professor Jha has seen me now from 2003 continuously and has accounted for my culture appropriately. See the exhibits at volume 3 (T-document supplement in the thick archer files) that is supplied to the tribunal by Australian Government Solicitor (starting) at page 976 (first page missing) the report of Dr. John Mellowship about my culture. In other words, Professor Jha thoroughly knows about my culture and even more than Anthropologist Dr. Mellowship, as he comes from the Priest class (Jha). I am comfortable with his appropriate diagnosis and my mental health has been stabilized over the time I have seen him. I agree with the view that other white male psychiatrists grossly overlooked my culture and mental problems and inadequately diagnosed me. I can say that my feelings of suffering from hallucinations and delusions in 1981 and having severe reaction to haloperidol for the first time at Royal Adelaide Hospital. This was the time I was having severe stress while I was in the Army. I noticed symptoms of diabetes soon after this haloperidol reaction and my moods used to go up and down, from being active to being lazy. On top of that, I had depression and anxiety of Army life, I was having panic attacks to save my self and family life and Army life and much more. So far, the blood glucose reports up to 1982 readings did not show abnormal glucose readings in Australia. I did not access to such blood tests results that I had in Thailand and Nepal, when I had contacted herpes. In volume 1 of the exhibit (T-documents supplementary in the arch file provided to AAT by the respondent) and page 28, the glucose level was 4.7 fasting and Creat. was 0.10 both within normal range. At page 78, the glucose was normal in the same volume. At page 104 related blood test results have been missing. The complaints and symptoms recorded may point towards the effect of severe haloperidol reaction and to wards diabetes as the blood test result is missing. At page 105 the blood test result is missing. At page 112 it is in volume 1 the blood test is hard to read in establishing diabetes. In page 114 the glucose in normal. The applicant argues that the blood test results has been sabotaged for an ulterior purpose to hide blood test results at pages 128 to 129 to give Professor Goldney and Dr. Stevenson to fit in the so called Bradford criteria in terms of temporality and causality that matters my Army service and contributing towards my diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes type two. The applicant refers to volume 1 of the exhibit before this tribunal that has all medical records. Same problem seems to be case in page 132 as a reasonable minded person cannot read the blood test result. This type of dishonest manipulation is again occurring at page 133 about the blood test. Glucose reading is normal at page 139. Blood test result is hard to read in page 140. I have had problems with diabetes like symptoms from 1981 after taking haloperidol’s severe reaction I had when forced with it in Royal Adelaide hospital. Please note that there are three volumes of medical files on me as supplementary T-documents, and I am referring to them all. I have had problems with such lethargy, which significantly affected in my work performance in the Army and in the universities and relationships. I tried part time employment periodically in 1983-1984 and then in 1986-1987 and from there I have not been able to work at all. There seems to be evidence from Dr. Stevenson that people from Kathmandu, Nepal to have greater than 20 times to get diabetes like the Australian Aboriginal cohorts. Then it is probable to infer that the applicant’s diabetes was significantly contributed by the haloperidol severe reaction in 1981, and went unnoticed and untreated by the Army and other State institutional health system until early to late 2005, which was noticed when it was severely aggravated and accelerated stage. The literature shows that there is a significant correlation with schizophrenia. The applicant argues this to mean a significant association with his paranoid schizophrenia. The applicant further argues that his paranoid schizophrenia was also not detected much early arising more serious sexual abuses in the Army he could not report it to the authorities. He tried to keep it a secret. There was significant evidence and was not provided by Australian Federal Police and this aspect the applicant took it all the way to the High Court and lost it and the applicant was ordered to pay over A$30000. However, in all this matter and involving Western Union International Financial Services a deed of settlement has been reached has been the applicant’s evidence, and the Australian Government Solicitor’s (AGS) has remained silent about it. The Australian Federal Police’s civilian lawyers Philip Fox went over the head of the AGS. Likewise, all other factors that the appellant’s past problems have been solved by signing deeds even such matters the court found that he had tried to fraudulently sent emails and doctor documents. Currently, Justice Besanko is revisiting the issue that mattered University of South Australia. In another matter the applicant sued University of Adelaide and Professor Goldney, Justice Lander did not find the applicant sent such emails in similar type of allegations made by University of South Australia, which was also a party, who used the same experts and daughter of Justice Mansfield Annabel Mansfield. Thus, significant doubt remains about the finding made by Justice Besanko to which Professor Goldney was briefed in Repatriation matter. I am finalizing all my matters with University of South Australia in coming week 19/2/2009 by settlement of the deed which concerns past, present and future matters with a view of ‘let the sleeping dogs sleep.’ No wonder Professor Goldney has never read the Military Police report and lacks detailed knowledge of the applicant’s one and half years of acute tortured existence in the Army. He as a person who is not only unethical and used criminally illegal ways to use Adelaide University’s logo to show his prestige doubted the applicant’s true confession and belief’s to Professor Bal Jha and others as false and recently constructed repressed memory to causes of my illnesses. What is wrong to inquire about causality as humans do to search such meaning? The three volumes of my medical datas related brief to Professor Goldney does not have the Military Police report as that occurs in the pages 20 (last paragraph) to 23. The other abuses that occurs in page 23 and related negative findings by AAT of 2004 (see Veterans’ Review Board reasons and decision VRB S03-0363 and DVA SM9393 dated 16/12/2004), is now the subject of the deed with Australian Federal Police in matters AAT then to Federal Magistrates Court action number ADG148 of 2007, Federal Court number SAD 113 of 2006 and High Court number A29 of 2007. The applicant argues that at page 174 [1] (see the explanation for the footnotes in the last pages after exhibits), the Military System was not authorized to pass this sensitive information to the applicant’s ex-wife’s General Physician, which destroyed all relations with the ex-wife for reconciliation and hampered access to the child that mattered the child being infected with herpes virus. The Military System under Dr. Hoff and Dr. Bickmore (both Army doctors) claimed that it was theirs’ military duty under the ethics and laws of controlling of herpes epidemiology had to do so. This was the final straw any meaning relations that the applicant had with Army broke down and contributed ongoing stress to this day about guilt. The applicant argues this fact validates Dr. Pasquale’s assessment that Army significantly contributed to the breakage of the applicant’s marriage and access to the child and this is fact and not fantasy of Professor Goldney. There was no such law and the outdated Bradford criteria required by the Army to be applied in this issue that mattered epidemiology. This theory was first conceptualized in 1952 and is very hard to apply in this context and content, as is a significant issue of trans-cultural psychiatry that Professor Jha is well conversed with and has nothing to do with Professor Goldney’s expertise of suicide and homicide prevention. He is out of his depth and breadth in the matter that concerns paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes type two from a person from Nepal. He has not been to India and Nepal like Dr. Jha or Dr. Stevenson. In volume 2 (T-document supplementary) of the exhibit at page 475, the glucose test is normal. In page, 492 drug chlorpromazine notes and the date 8/7/1985.Same volume at page 503 the glucose level is abnormal at 6.6 fasting. No follow-ups occurred, as it will be shown, what Dr. David Miller had told the tribunal. At page 639, the glucose is normal. In page 805, the glucose reading is abnormal at 5.9 fasting. This is dated 14/7/1992. In volume 3 (T-document supplementary) and page 1063, this dated 28/12/1994. The glucose level fasting is 6.3. This is abnormal reading and no follow-ups were done by hospital. At page 1074 the glucose reading was fasting 8.8 and the Creatinine was 0.141 both significant higher readings. This is dated 25/3/1999 (fasting). No hospital follow-ups occurred as prescribed by Dr. David Miller. At page 1191, the glucose reading is very abnormal at 10 and Anion Gap. No follow-up by hospital occurred for the diagnosis of diabetes type 2. This is dated 17/5/2001. Much later in 2007 the diabetes analysis is recorded in 2007. Professor Bal Jha, an internationally acclaimed psychiatrist has seen the applicant over many years and has accounted all the materials that Professor Goldney has seen. Professor Jha has observed me and measured me scientifically, who also took notes and has truthfully and in detail recited them before the AAT. T-5 document is also exhibit material or the transcript before His Honourable Lander J is also of the same consistency. The applicant has shown all case notes of the entire psychiatrist he has seen, the hospital discharge summaries over many years from Nepal, Thailand and all over Australia to Professor Jha. He has then assessed the perception of me that I gave to him about my Army suffering and given great weight to it than Professor Goldney. He does not agree with the assessment of Professor Goldney at all. Professor Goldney has treated the applicant akin to the Psychiatrist Eric Gassy who killed the Head of South Australian Mental Health Service, who has been described as delusional and cannot be trusted. Professor Goldney has alleged that the applicant has reconstructed a blame and shame game on the Australian Army for money on the background of his past criminal convictions. However, such convictions have been spent and the use of it is illegal, as it has violated the applicant’s human rights. Professor Goldney has further violated the applicant’s confidentiality and privacy by supplying a report to the tribunal without his express and implied or written permission. This is also in breaches of Federal Privacy Act. The responsibility lies with the Australian Government Solicitors. They did not issue a subpoena to produce such a report and as such has been obtained illegally. Professor Goldney has moral turpitude and was using University of Adelaide’s logo for his private practice like what former Federal Justice Einstein was doing in using Federal Court logo for his private practice. Actually, Professor Goldney had breached s. 5B of the University of Adelaide Act, which was passed by South Australian Parliament. The applicant in terms of equitable estoppel asks the tribunal to exclude all the evidence of Professor Goldney. He has also not seen the applicant for this tribunal purpose, and has used materials from other proceedings without the applicant’s permission. Further, I argue the respondent, Australian Government Solicitor and Professor Goldney has breached the tort of breaches of confidentiality as concerned parties by collusion to be prejudicial to my cause. I further argue that the tort of breaches of confidentiality by the respondent, Australian Government Solicitors, Chief of Army and others is “picked up” by section 79 and 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), where common law is now unified law of Australia. Thus, such illegalities arising, the applicant argues impacts with compelling force on this tribunal, and it should consider the invocation of ss. 66 and 66A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to exclude the entire evidence of Professor Goldney. In addition there is no evidence that he has ever seen the Military Police report in detail like Professor Jha in terms of physical and indecent assault like described by Professor Jha at page 59 of the hearing transcript dated 9/12/2008 at lines 25 to 40. In the record noted by Professor Jha of his last interview with the applicant in mattered indecent assault by Private Jenkins of the Australian Army. To this, Professor Goldney indicated that such stressors are minor and major ones need to have actual penis penetration of the applicant’s personal parts. Professor Jha does not agree. He stands by his report now the exhibit material and examined in detail by the respondent’s Counsel at length. Professor Jha has narrated it and explained it with precision and clarity from trans-cultural psychiatry point of view that was appropriate to the applicant. This fact has not been accounted for in the Bradford criteria. The applicant’s diseases were diagnosed in 2004 and 2005, SRCA Act is not applicable, and the correct one is the new MRCC Act of 2004. The diagnosis by Professor Jha about the applicant’s condition falls within MRCA legislation and the applicant’s diabetes by its association with paranoid schizophrenia. Because it has a significant statistical correlation and the multiplier effect that Dr. Stevenson agreed being 2 to 4 times greater, and for a Nepalese from Kathmandu valley the risk is 19 to 21 times greater…. The tribunal must be satisfied with these questions: (i) Was the applicant subjected to bullying, harsh and humiliating treatment during service by way of verbal racial and sexual abuse, physical, indecent assaults, and sexual teasing? (ii) If so, did that treatment contribute to a material degree to an aggravation of the applicant’s paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes? (iii) Was there a delay in treatment of the applicant’s paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes, which aggravated the ailment and increased his impairment or incapacity? Having regard to the applicant’s truthful evidence and by his expert witness and all exhibits tendered by the applicant the reply to these questions must be “yes”. Aggravation may be by an acceleration of the course of an ailment, or by making the symptoms or prognosis of an ailment worse. Aggravation may result from a failure to diagnose and treat a disease if that results in a worsening or aggravation of the condition, when compared with the course which given timely treatment it would have taken. (See Johnston v The Commonwealth (1982) 150 CLR 331). Increased pain or other symptoms may constitute an aggravation, even though no pathological changes take place. (See Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626).. It is a difficult question whether in the case of schizophrenia, which is a psychotic ailment, an increase in stress, humiliation, and psychological trauma results in an aggravation of the ailment. An aggravation may make an ailment worse by making it more severe, or more resistant to treatment, or by making it more persistent in terms of not having the sort of remission that would in many cases be expected after a first episode of schizophrenia. In order to be compensable under s 14 of the Act, an aggravation must result in incapacity or impairment. In Federal Broom Co, the High Court was considering a different legislative provision where the relevant words describing what is now referred to as an aggravation of an ailment or disease were “aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of any disease”. Windeyer J said at pp639- 640: The next question then is, was there in December 1960 “an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration” of the disease? The words have somewhat differing meanings: one may be more apt than another to describe the circumstances of a particular case: but their several meanings are not exclusive of one another. The question that each poses is, it seems to me, whether the disease has been made worse in the sense of more grave, more grievous or more serious in its effects upon the patient. To say that a man’s sickness is worse or has deteriorated means in ordinary parlance, oddly enough, the same thing as saying that his health has deteriorated. The word “acceleration” probably presupposes a progressive disease, one that, running its ordinary course, increases in gravity until a climax such as death or total invalidism is reached–its progress to this end result not being ordinarily susceptible of being permanently arrested, but susceptible of being hastened by external stimuli. . . However, in the present case the words “aggravation” or “exacerbation” are more apt than “acceleration” to describe the matters on which the case for the applicant depends. Although the definition of “aggravation” in the Act only expressly includes “acceleration”, we do not doubt that an exacerbation of a disease is an aggravation of an ailment. Thus, the comments of Windeyer J are helpful in considering the concept of aggravation of an ailment. See Achurch and Comcare [2003] AATA 902 that defies the Bradford criteria of temporality and what Professor Goldney had to say. At paragraph 95 to 171. See Professor Jha in page 76 of the hearing transcript on 9/12/2008 in lines 1 to 5. The same logic is to my next case in USA below. Professor Goldney indicated that the applicant has no contact with the Army in page 4 of his report to the AAT in the first paragraph. This is not true. The applicant has given testimony that he has been fighting for his compensation and from that time to now the Chief of Army making him bankrupt are significant stressors in accumulative terms. Dr. Jha has rebutted Professor Goldney in terms of the theory of “repressed homosexuality” before the tribunal. Professor Goldney count not account for the genetic issue of the applicant’s family ever suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The late onset of paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes are recognized illness. The tribunal must have increased confidence from Professor Jha’s prior knowledge, as his results conform to predictions from theoretical considerations and/or prior knowledge about specificity of type of exposure, or specificity regarding the outcome in different subgroups of the population. Association between A and D is coherent with biologic knowledge and/or a plausible mechanistic model of action can be delineated. He knows from epidemiology strength of association between A and D exceeds that of potential confounders. Association between A and D is consistently observed in different population, with different types of studies, with different types of studies, or in different time intervals. Professor Goldney has in favour of causation recited temporal relation by showing no mechanism of action of A on any or all stages of D has been established. (He did not even know what Barr-Epstein virus was in cross-examination). In terms of association to my Army service abuses, he indicated exposure to such abuses has not been precisely assessed. Which is invalid by inference. On the hand, Professor Jha showed the association validly with the logic A is a downstream factor of agent/determinant B that has been indicated as a casual factor of D. A has been associated with B that has been indicated as a casual factor of D. In terms of Professor Goldney there was differential bias (response or observer bias) in the direction of an association between A and D. Professor Goldney was invalid as there he showed my Army exposure being not properly classified He showed observer bias without seeing me for this matter with unknown effect on the association between A and D. Thus the pragmatic dialogue approach to casual inferences about an agent or determinant A with respect to a disease D: Evidence from epidemiological studies in temporal relation Professor Goldney remained invalid in favour temporal relation and association issues. Professor Goldney has introduced in this matter definition of causation from epidemiologic literature. Many disease (including schizophrenia) definitions already include a cause (eg. AIDS is a clinical syndrome in the presence of HIV infection of CD4 cells), but this must not be confused with a necessary cause. All clinical symptoms that occur in AIDS patients can have a variety of other “causes”. Professor Goldney claims that no paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes was diagnosed while the applicant was in the Army in terms of the “temporal relation” with the applicant’s suffering any abuses. Trans-culturally the psychiatrists and doctors erred in making such diagnosis is a possible explanation. The genetic factor of the applicant in diabetes was there, and from there the probable diagnosis of schizophrenia could be inferred too is a valid argument, and Army health service did not provide adequate treatment in time and the late onset of paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes in the applicant late onset is a reasonable hypothesis in the mind of the applicant in terms of casualty and causation or association. The cautions from these authors are what Professor Goldney is trying to do, that is to mislead the tribunal. Professor Goldney misled the tribunal about epigenetic factor that is the applicant’s environmental trauma in the Australian Army which significantly and materially contributed to late onset of paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes. Bradford criteria fails to address the issue of the plight of asbestos related illness that develops gradually much after the events if one adopts the logic of Professor Goldney based on his evidence to the AAT. Have there not been compensation payouts? This is the exactly the term what applies meaning ‘insidious’ disease which operates acting gradually and imperceptibly but with grave consequences. This was the exact words used by Professor Jha in the hearing for the applicant’s late onset of paranoid schizophrenia, and no genetic factor was observed by him Thus, this paranoid schizophrenia is a disease developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent could be satisfying to the tribunal with the global or universal application of the Bradford criteria in this matter. It just does not accommodate specifically the cultural component that was addressed by Professor Jha in his last two pages of the report that is the exhibit in the hearing. At page 3 (all the pages below refers to Goldney report to the AAT) of the report the author fails to reply specifically the value system of the applicant that is specific in a warrior class from Hindu religion. The applicant had indicated to him Baxter had violated his property in Kapooka in 1981 (evidence in 2004), Neil showing private parts and masturbating it (evidence in AAT 2004) and much more all accumulated to make the Army life a failure and this has been the unfinished business of the applicant as a migrant and ethnic minority in an urban setting. Professor Goldney has used Dr. Murphy in 1984 and there is no report of Dr. Cantor in 21/3/2005 as Professor Goldney has just fabricated a data in page 3 of the report concerning the applicant’s psychosis. This is a milestone or marker of the developmental phases of the applicant’s illness. The applicant has had and ongoing contact with Army since 1982 for compensation and pensions and following litigations. Professor Goldney at page 5 clinches the question 6 with however that he fails to see direct associations between stressors and onset of the insidious disease of the applicant as a true and global scientist, who writes reports to benefit the employer without the applicant’s wishes by using Adelaide University’s logo as the best person who knows these issues, and reduces the whole belief and value system of the applicant with one word “credible”. He is credible and others are not, His theory is tenable and others are not. By doing Derida deconstruction I find how he is the central theorem of belief and others are required for exclusion as being marginal. Thus, he is not a scientist but a Courtroom performance artist with diabolical outlook in terms of being unethical and unlawful. The respondent seeks to dismiss the complaint of the applicant as by law he refused to see Professor Goldney. It says it is more credible to obtain the report as it did under the circumstances to dismiss the applicant’s claim as DP Jarvis has ruled the use of Repatriation Commission data in these proceedings and as such, Professor Goldney’s testimony and report is more credible than Professor Jha is. Other dissatisfaction of the applicant of Professor Goldney is immaterial. The applicant does not agree with this illogical argument of the respondent. Professor Goldney has failed to justify the direct association of diabetes and schizophrenia. See page 20 of the hearing transcript at lines 20 to 25, page 21 at lines 30 to 40, page 23 at line 30. I indicated Professor Goldney violated my trust, there is evidence that the applicant did not get proper psychiatric treatment in Nepal in page 25 lines 15 to 20, About the applicant’s cultural value system is at lines 20 to 45 in page 32 and again in page 33. Professor Goldney fails to adequately reply to Professor Jha and this tribunal cannot be satisfied with his over simplification and reduction of data (over parsimonious simplification and reduction of facts to illogical level) that matter the applicant. See at pages 59 lines 5 to 35, page 60 at lines 45 and next page to line 20, page 64 starting line 24, and to page 68 ending, again at page 71 line 1 to 10, at page 74 lines 15 to 45, and pages 75 to 76, at page 78 in lines 40 to 45, pages 79 to 83, Finally at pages 94 to 102. All of these pages referred are to the transcripts of the hearing. The applicant argues that Professor Jha has passed these criteria with flying colour as Professor Goldney could not be relied arising his moral turpitude. The applicant has not been convicted since he has a long time ago and he paid his price and is being as honest that is true to his heart. The applicant argues that Professor Jha was not provided with any issue about his criminal convictions by Australian Government Solicitors. In fact, it was the applicant who provided him with all AAT decisions, all Court decisions and related transcripts and so on. The applicant did it with spontaneity and transparency. It is not like Professor Goldney’s ridiculous and child like irresponsible response to the tribunal that he had overlooked for fifteen years the illegal use of Adelaide University’s logo for his high profile employer clients. Professor Jha has given significant weight to the perception of the applicant’s ongoing problems with the Army life as it has remained unresolved, and is unlikely to remain resolved for a very long time. This implies from a dictionary meaning ‘the mental interpretation of physical sensations produced by stimuli from the external world’ and ‘intituitive discernment’. This is based upon the applicant’s Hindu warrior class family background. Some of the explanation Professor Jha provides in his report at page 5 in the last paragraph to page 6. Anthropologist Dr. John Mellowship supports this at pages 976 to 982 in volume 3 of the exhibit before the tribunal in evidence to support the argument of this applicant. See also Professor Jha in objective dialogue based on trans-cultural psychiatry with Justice Lander in page 179 that mattered the applicant’s specific culture and value system in T-5 of the exhibit material. In Japan, the Samurai warriors committed suicide in not living up to one’s family expectation. However, the applicant could not commit such suicide as he believes as a Hindu such acts will make him a ghost. Thus, the applicant has post-traumatic stress and adjustment problems ongoing. However, the Military Police report in the Veterans’ Review Board has recorded the applicant being burglarized by a Gunner in Kapooka, has been victim of sexual and physical assault and other abuses in a regular basis. The applicant has gained some insight about his paranoid schizophrenia and his horrible time in Army. The applicant also notes in fasting high end of 5 in glucose reading (normal being 3 to 5.6). This was recorded in 28/8/1981. This is in volume 1 in page 139 [3]. No follow-up was done with Army. In page 188, in the same volume mild eosinophilia was detected in terms of toxoplasmosis Gondi that Professor Jha has out in his differential diagnosis. The applicant was allergic to Army cats and infested with parasites. There is significant correlation between schizophrenia and toxoplasmosis Gondi. The date shows 7/12/1981. The article below provides a link to the development of paranoid schizophrenia of the applicant was emerging via his urban living, migration and his ethnicity being minority being abused. The applicant has provided evidence that other factors that the respondent has raised is not operational, and Professor Goldney has used it highly in a prejudicial matter as being more than the Army related alleged abuses. It is his exaggerated version to oversimplify to suit his Bradford criteria assumptions based temporality and causality. His theory fails because it is based on his fabricated assumptions, which is further not believable arising his moral turpitude, and illegality that matters the stealing of the applicant’s data and selling it to the respondent without the applicant’s permission. In sum, there is significant doubt about what Dr. Stevenson and Professor Goldney has to say about the paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes type two and his Army service as horrible experience. The applicant will use constructivism and Derida Deconstruction theories to discredit Professor Goldney and Dr. Stevenson in terms of theirs’ reliance on Bradford criteria for the applicant’s exclusion. They use these criteria in the Veterans’ Entitlement Act related matter. This is not the appropriate forum to use this outdated epidemiology theory as a global utility tool to aid rational minded decision makers for specific context and content of the applicant’s suffering. The applicant also submits here below the observations of the applicant in the three volumes of the T-documents supplementary relating to his medical files [4]: 1. Dating 19 December 1980 at Regimental Aid Post (RAP) of the 1st Recruit Training Battalion (1 RTB) in Kapooka, New South Wales. Blow to left eye from a can thrown by then Sergeant Bruno. 2. 2 January 1981 at 1 RTB “Acid” stomach…many…problem due to harassment in lines.” Ranjit Rana had told the AAT of 1988 and 2004 in specific terms and was not believed that no racial or other harassment existed with contemporaneous evidence. This is the first time this medical complaint has been brought to the AAT’s attention. 3. 20 November 1980 in 1 RTB. Head injury pain and also records been hit on head. I remember this incident related to Baxter, when he stole laundry keys from my desk and without my approval. 4. 2 Januray 1981 at 1 RTB. For emotional problem that I suffered arising name calling and harassment that increased my stress level. I think the Regimental Police was aware of my personal problems and their records have not been provided to me so far, and AAT of 2004 was highly critical about me for being unsatisfactory witness. Yet, they would not issue subpoena to the army for production of the record. 5. 22 January 1980 was again review to the blow to my left eye by Sergeant Bruno throwing a 1000 ml of juice can as indicate above to me in the bush. 6. 1 January 1981 at 1 RTB about acidy taste and vomiting due to stress arising from various assaults and racial name-calling. 7. 11 August 1981 at 16 Air Defence Regiment review by Army doctor for personal problems like sexual harassment and indecent assault by Private Andrew Jenkins and for assaults by other and including Jenkins regularly with name-calling with sexual and racial references, which I objected. 8. 12 August 1981, I was admitted to RAP 3 RAR Medical Ward for depression and headache with many personal and army problems. 9. 10 November 1981, chipped bone in right thumb arising being injured when I was assaulted by Jenkins and this resulted as I was defending myself. 10. 10 February 1981, I was feeling tired and inadequate in 16 Air Defence Regiment with personal and army induced depression. 11. I had ringing of my ear and loss of memory and was off to see Dr. Hoff arising army related abuses I was seen on 28/2/1982 by the Regimental Medical Officer and was confined to barracks and was not fit for duty until 3/3/1982. 12. From central medical files that Orme had access to number 82/Box 221. I have located a report of Dr. A. N. Goss. It said I was having muscle spasm arising an effect of depression in 13/2/1987. 13. I have the reasoning of the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board and related pages of the Military Police investigations at pages 21 to 23. 14. I have a literature on adjustment disorders, which shows adjustment disorder is reactive depression and transient situational disturbance. Orme indicated at the time of my discharge I did not have adjustment disorder and only had reactive depression, which is not a psychiatric condition like personality disorder. I have evidence to link from hospital records of 1981 at Repatriation General Hospital I was actually suffering from adjustment disorder and transient situational crisis contrary to Brigadier Orme, Armys’ head of personnel. 15. I found two more medical notes from Army very catastrophic. They are: • Dated 10 March 1982 very catastrophic, while on duty Private Jenkins attack me from the back and inserted broom up my anus. I could not tell others and had significant pain. This is noted bursting of hemorrhoids. I think there were witnesses like Privates Bradley, Mudie and Golding. I was in pain and was not believed. • Dated 10 November 1981. It records 2-chipped bones as a result of being assaulted by Private Jenkins in Kangaroo 1981 exercise in Queensland, It said restricted duty and no use of right arm. The Commanding Officers did not take action against the attacker. • These two will be attached with this brief to Professor Dr. Jha. Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Doctor Bal Jha has been seeing me since end of 2004. He has read all the documents provided to Dr. Goldney [5] and Dr. Davis of the teaching staff at Adelaide University. So far, what Professor Jha has said to His Honour Lander J, and all the case notes he has on me was subpoenaed by the Australian Government Solicitors, and a copy exists at the AAT registry, and a copy of those notes I have provided to Dr Goldney in January of this year. If necessary, I will tender the case notes from the registry to the trial judge. Professor Jha made positive statements about me: where he described me how the psychiatric conditions actually works based on my army service related various abuses, his statements can be tested and probably refuted from the attacks of Drs. Goldney, Davis and Carmine De Pasquale, who are connected institutionally to Adelaide University [5]. Professor Jha’s assessments of me are objective and not subjective like the ones from Drs. Goldney, Davis and Pasquale. Professor Jha’s statements are consistent with the evidences so far I have collected and compiled at the AAT registry from my suffering “poor memory” and “poor concentration” as a child and up to now in various places like the army, university and other settings. I have performed okay in universities arising ‘reasonable adjustments’ to my ongoing impairment related to my psychiatric disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). I have not performed well like in the army and other settings, as I have not been given reasonable adjustment. To link what Professor Jha has said to His Honour Lander J, I have also now compiled all the defined physical assaults, indecent assaults and racial name-calling against me by various army personnel and at various locations between 1980 and mid 1982. Those documents also link physical injuries and/or psychiatric distress I suffered arising those causes in the army to be significant, and it is so as the type of personality disorder I suffered even before joining the army I had it and was of a soft nature and got aggravated by the stresses of being abused in the army. Of all things being equal, Drs. Goldney, Davis and Pasquale do not agree, “what is” being said about me by Professor Jha, which can be proven and can be tested by comparing to them to facts. On the other hand, the respondents’ psychiatrists has made normative statements about me, which is ‘what ought to be’ about my army service and the psychiatric conditions as diagnosed by Professor Jha. They claim I do not have paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes, and only fabrication done scientifically by me to obtain money from the respondent. The respondents’ psychiatrists have made opinions about me on subjective basis as they relied on personal values, and such opinions of them cannot be tested, in contrasted to the careful observations and measurements of Professor Jha. The models developed by Drs. Goldney, Davis and Pasquale are based on false assumptions about me as “Romei Subramanium” and much more as I will spill the beans at trial. Theirs’ model has some description about my psychiatric conditions related world. In actual testing of it by Geoff Camilos and Shashi Raj Maharaj’s theories, the prediction and forecasting is unsatisfactory and unreliable. I will explain, Professor Jha addresses his model and theory specifically with various scientifically proven facts of abuses to me and links to the army service of my and ongoing effects in operation by those psychiatric comorbidities. I never had a closure as the Military Police report was given to me in 2004 and no one did proper analysis of it in specific terms like Dr. Jha. The respondents have used generalizations of false theories to summarize what they think that they understand about me from the real world like involved in fraud and dishonesty and personality disorder means being an immoral insane person or an evil one, which is not scientifically linked to the known facts. They are trying to bolster theirs’ a fantasy model with a false theory as a firm and sound bridge between theirs’ knowledge about me to my actual real world of suffering. The allegations that the applicant tried to defraud in name of Romei Subramanium, Anthony Long, A. Short, Director of Psychology of University of South Australia, and as Deepak Bista cannot be entertained by this tribunal as a matter of public policy. This is arising several deeds of settments he has with Universities of Adelaide, Flinders and University of South Australia. Thus, this tribunal should exclude it under s. 42B of the AAT Act and/or s 66 and 66A of the AAT, and any sections that may matter the Privacy Act. The applicant has not given Drs. Pasquale, Davis and Hoff to release his personal information of the past to any one implicitly or expressly. In sum, “other things being equal” theirs’ assumption to concentrate on the effect of a change in a single variable that is my significant suffering from army even now in isolation from all others are false and Professor Jha’s is the preferable one. Because, the respondent’s assumptions about me are false in making the model, and the logic used to arrive at conclusions are irrational. They have used logic to help spot and eliminate fallacies in reasoning. Such as the fallacy of composition and the post hoc fallacy has not been eliminated. In terms of the first fallacy, the respondent’s statements about me that is what is true of the parts is true of the whole or what is true of the whole is true of the parts is not correct. Likewise for the latter fallacy, the respondent’s errors or reasoning about me that a first event (my abuses in the army specifically) causes a second event (my ongoing psychiatric and diabetes conditions) because the first occurred before the second. How can reasonable person prefer such fallacies? I have received statements of my former bosses and Private Golding. I also have received a report of Dr. Goldney dated 4 August 2008. The most important thing is that he does not think that being sexually assaulted by Private Jenkins and other abuses that is recorded by the Military Police is “catastrophic”. Given I was molested in early age and am hypersensitive by others touching me by others, which is inappropriate to a Hindu man. They think it is a joke that was played on me to toughen me up. The last boss I had was an Asian (Japanese) and did not think I suffered from any psychiatric condition and was just a malingerer, lazy, slack and “me no nothing” to avoid job ahead and brought the moral down and became a liability, and was contrary to the mission of the Army. I find the disregard to my diabetes as being feigned and a malingerer. I was alcoholic and was contributed by Army culture. I was an alcoholic psychotic and they were right that I had some grandeur as alcohol provided an escape for Army and me considered me to be a liability. I was charged for going without leave arising drunkenness issue. This is now backed up by Private Golding. The Japanese boss Major Watts considered I was not suffering from depression, when in fact he had reports from Dr. Hoff between early August 1981 until March 1982. The Japanese do not believe in psychiatry and allege that mental illness is for the lazy. Sergeant Liebenau was also not telling the truth. He used to visit me in hospitals to pay me my wages on more than three or four occasions. He did so when I was admitted to Royal Adelaide Hospital and Repatriation General Hospital. He visited me in the psychiatric wards. Lieutenant Colonel Blackwell also knew that I was depressed and had reports of the Regimental Doctor, Bickmore and Dr. Hoff reports. He had visited my ex-wife with Dr. Bickmore to sort few matters. They were well aware like Watts and Liebenau that I was assaulted and abused but did a “me no have” evidence cover up to protect the white boys. I have never acknowledged anything as suggested by Warrant Officer (Second Class) Don Whitman, that all racial remarks and pinching in the back side, and physical pushing and shoving was by my permission, and was not abuses, it was Aussie banter for fun and frolics of youth. I find such comments very offensive and brings flood of sweat and bad memories. It is remarkable that he indicated that my worked doing paper work had deteriorated as I had poor concentration and poor memory. The Japanese boss of his and mine had told him that to treat depression/laziness was to ignore it and try to sack me without any benefits. Both considered me evil and morally insane. All of them knew as he was the one who after talking with me suggested to the former earlier boss Blackwell to send me to see the “shrink” Dr. Hoff. I refute being a malingerer and that is not backed by Drs Bickmore and Hoff’s diagnosis. This is my rebuttal to Private Golding. I agree that the Army made me an alcoholic and do not refute what he has to say about it. I also know he was the one always complaining that my paper work was bad. I also know he reported me dropping a rifle on parade. I find all of these peoples’ now comments are sanitized version to be used by Dr. Goldney in a certain way to defeat my claims. I notice that Dr. Davis found like a judge that I am a fraud and have never read the Army Police’s file about me being assaulted physically and sexually by Private Jenkins (he confessed). Dr. Davis was not provided the same sets of files in same volumes (to the quantity to Dr. Goldney) to what was provided by the people who have retained Dr. Goldney. Same also applies to Drs. Hoff and Pasquale. I note that now Dr. Goldney appears to be concurring with me that I was suffering adjustment disorder. However, Brigadier Craig Orme said I did not suffer it when I was in the Army. In page 4 of his report, Dr. Goldney says that I did suffer adjustment disorder or reactive depression and was time limited such as reaction to contemporaneous stressors, such as interpersonal/marital difficulties and improperly rejects the Military Police reports of my abuse and the findings from that file by the Veterans’ Review Board. However, Dr. Hoff in AAT of 1988 indicated that in that contemporaneous time, I was suffering from chronic reactive depression. I was paid liability from 16 July 1982 until 1985 by the Army. This is fact, Dr. Goldney seems to be divorced from facts, and preferring his subjective view of the world what should have been. It is a normative opinion and not positive one that can be proven by the admittance of liability by the Army based on Dr. Kutlaca’s report. Dr. Goldney says he has considered all materials and has failed to reply including the Military Police report and what I have provided recently to the Tribunal and the Diabetes report of Dr. Miller. He has used selective materials and has failed to answer specifically to what I am proposing to you. At page 5, the question on (to Dr. Goldney and his) reply at the end of it “whether there was any clinical worsening of any schizophrenia suffered by the applicant on or before 13 August 1982, and if yes, the date of such worsening; and” is very ambiguous. The reasons are: • I was bleeding as recorded for burst of hemorrhoids as I have indicated above from the broom of Private Jenkins, I was alcoholically psychotic, I had glandular fever, suicidal and much more. I went to Nepal around mid of April 1982, absent without leave to seek protection and peace. I was very ill in Nepal. I was told by letter of Group Captain Gillard, Australian Military Attaché, in Australian Embassy, New Delhi, that I would be given all post administrative follow ups like being paid my superannuation (which occurred, but to this day no full medical board). • I was treated for glandular fever and suicidal matters in August 1981 with haloperidol and benzotropine. The same was used for me in Nepal after I was diagnosed of suffering from toxoplasma Gondi and being psychotic from alcohol and toxoplasma. • The Army never provided me all records and evidence of my abuse until 2004. • The Army went quite to give me full medical board in Nepal or India or Australia in 1982 and even now. • I came back to Australia in end of 1982 and suffered another bout of psychosis in 1983/4 in Queensland. • In page page 6, Dr. Goldney [5] says the question prior to as “not applicable”. • In page 6, Dr. Goldney makes of story that I did not have aggravation of personality disorder from a catastrophic experience. He did not want to take the military police file that I had, and told me he was provided by his retainers and makes no account of it. He asked me I must had enjoyed the army banters and such are pain and pleasure of life. I found it very offensive at his suggestion that I actually enjoyed sadomasochistic epistles in the Army, and thus he confirmed that “paranoid schizophrenia” means one who is a cupboard homosexual deviant. No accounting for what I told him about the abuses, no accounting of military police files” and just cooks up story that I feigned diabetes, abuses and “poor symptoms and poor memories” recently. What about my hospitalization and diagnosis of Drs. Newman, and others from the pain clinic and my adjustments in universities? He says I did not have depression, no poor memories, and no poor concentration in 2003. There was evidence that I had poor memory and poor concentration from the data of university records and Dr. Goldney is silent to say it is all feigned. It was given by Dr. Pasquale to University of Adelaide in 2002 with the words “poor memory and poor concentration”. Why has he failed to account them? It is amazing to the litanies of lies of the Dr. Goldney. The AAT of 1988 records in transcript that Dr. Hoff indicated I was suffering from chronic reactive depression and so did Drs. Kutlaca and Pasquale. Based on such severity I was paid workers’ compensation for aggravation of personality disorder and adjustment disorder from 16 July 1982 until 15 April 1985. This is fact and not psychotic utopian speculation by Drs. Goldney and Davis. Dr. Goldney does not answer the long questions at pages 8 and 9 and simply fobs off with his considerations are at question 2d [5]. There are several assumptions that I am a fraud. Doctor Goldney refers such issues are legal ones and not psychiatric one. The doctor did not consider the entire military police files and the findings by the Veterans’ Review Board and has used selective data to benefit his financial masters. About minor issues, he only replies to Haloperidol and remains selectively silent to Benztropine [5]. He does not want to reply that it was given to me for glandular fever and toxoplasma induced and alcohol induced psychosis in 1981, while I was in the army. He made many errors 2002 now become 1982, that there is no basis of liability. He alleges that I gave him a lie about my own dad’s death. I know it was October 1981. He made another error that I caught venereal illness in Hong Kong and he claims it should had been Bangkok. He indicated that the appropriate diagnosis is schizophrenia and that the diagnosis gone beyond paranoid personality disorder. Dr. Robert Goldney and Dr. Tony Davis have told me for the respondents my claim has failed based on theirs’ assessment of my entire case history. They have provided a bizarre result saying the diagnosis of paranoid and/or any other psychosis in not the result of what may have occurred to me in the Australian Army between 1980 and 1982. It is related to other causes and such they are significant and major contributors of the disease being aggravated. Likewise, concerning my diabetes Dr. Stevenson has the opinion that schizophrenia sufferers are probably more likely than not getting diabetes type 2 and there is no link with Army matters after so long. I do not agree with theirs’ assessment about my case after consulting with my doctors. Firstly, I will do a collateral attack on the epistemology, ontology and methodology used by them to prove that fatal errors of assessment of my psychiatric case. They have claimed that there is just not sufficient and/or no symptoms history of paranoid schizophrenia with Army abuses that transpired so long ago. It is unreasonable of them to say that all the psychiatrists and hospitals I have been has not recorded of my history of presenting complaint (detailed patient’s central problem and related symptoms in a chronological order). Most of the clinicians have identified my common psychiatric symptoms like depressive, psychotic, anxiety etc. However, the respondent’s doctors claim there were no logical sequences from those data for them to comment on relevant negative as well as positive symptoms. I argue this is an absurd and unreasonable hypothesis. In other words, they failed to identify common psychiatric symptoms. They did not properly read all the three volumes of the data before the AAT as evidence. They only read the brief of selected briefs and summary provided by the respondent that was highly selective and inferred from them opinions that was normative, descriptive, and subjective. The analysis lacked proper rigor. They have even failed to provide differential diagnosis. They have failed to comment on impact of illness on my life, there is no consideration about work, social relations and self-care. Further, they failed to record information on who administered my treatment when and where previously, what the treatment was (and preferably the dose and duration of treatment and my response to such treatments). Again, they did not consider the relationship between my psychiatric state and concurrent medical conditions properly from 1981 as of current. I have done this deconstruction of my history of presenting complaints that encompasses the three volumes and more. They have not organized the notes that are the three volumes, in terms of my general appearance and behaviour, speech, affect and mood, quality, range, appropriateness, depersonalization and derealization, thought (stream, form and content), perception, cognition, judgment, insight and rapport. Thus, no proper analysis has taken place for this tribunal to be so satisfied via their reports in terms of fairness to me and being reasonable. They also have failed to examine me physically and emphasize signs to my presenting and chronic problems, and there are no signs of long-term psychotropic drug use. There is further no identification sign of presence/absence of conditions that may present to me with psychiatric complications like endocrine disorders and so on. In the summary and diagnosis, there is no synthesis of signs and symptoms containing the three volumes to identify the core problems (of cause and effect). Thus, there is no explication in theirs’ reasoning for drawing the links between sign and symptoms and diagnostic decision-making like done by Dr. Jha. In other words, what important aspects in the history, mental state examination and physical examination led them to making provisional diagnosis. They failed to pick out relevant pieces of these sections and make links with the final diagnosis (and differential diagnoses). There is no brief indication of why the problems arose (precipitating factors), how the problems arose (predisposing factors) and factors influencing progression/the course of the problems (perpetuating and protective factors). In the formulation structure, they did not explore in more depth the aetiology of my illness like Dr. Jha. Dr. Goldney just says in normative statement that paranoid schizophrenia has no known aetiology and it is obvious that he has not read the three volumes before the AAT and the set of documents given to him in another matter. It applies to Dr. Davis and others. Thus, they have failed to draw on the precipitating, predisposing and perpetuating factors identified earlier in theirs’ summary to define, the biological, psychological and social forces that have contributed towards (i) the development of my paranoid schizophrenia and diabetes, and (ii) their response to my illness and/or disease. A major difference between a summary and a formulation is that the latter seeks to link the pieces of information as opposed to listing them. Thus, it was inevitable that they erred to draw on relevant pieces of information from earlier parts of reports on the three volumes; that contains my presenting problems in the context of my history of chronic illness. They have not integrated evidence and concepts from the wider literature; however, theirs statements lacks an understanding of me, and more focus is on the literature-based theories if any. They have not based on the formulations have outlined appropriate management plans including investigations, short-term goals and long-term goals. In other words, they lacked management structure of my illness. Second part will explore the three volumes and the Military Police Report that was before the AAT of 2004 for specific findings that this tribunal has to make in terms of sexual and physical abuses and others in proper definitions and the gravity of the cumulative impacts on me after so many years. All of the respondent’s psychiatrists have claimed that psychosis cannot be a traumatic event. There are similarities between the reaction to psychosis and PTSD: I got Army abuses image or feelings of what happened there in 1980s. I often get distracted by and go quiet in the middle of a conversation…it drew me like the voices did, wanting me to listen harder and closer. I find in literatures in my first episode of suffering I found similar levels of PTSD symptomatology (intrusion and avoidance) in survivors like me. See Shaw, K., McFarlane, A., Bookless, C and Air, T. (2002). ‘The aietology of post psychotic posttraumatic stress disorder following a psychotic episode.’ Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 39-47. Professor McFarlane destroys the hypothesis of Dr. Goldney in all respect of his reports so far. I can lay claim that after seeing many respondent’s doctors I was suffering PTSD arising stress due by theirs’ rejection of my trauma. I do not understand how the respondent’s psychiatrists claim my abuse in Army cannot be defined as a trauma and such psychosis emerged as a reaction to it after so many years. I have been telling about being sexually abuse in my childhood, and this has caused me to be hypersensitive. The proof is that there is only one person Dr. Deepak Pant, who is currently President of Nepalese Association of Victoria. I might have to call him as a witness about my sexual abuse in Nepal via phone hookup. I have been hearing voices while in the Army for physical and interpersonal violence and did not tell others. The auditory hallucinations also occurred to me in the Army after any trauma and Army doctors did not accept it. Read, J. (1997) states “…it seems reasonable to conclude that there may indeed be relationships between childhood abuse and adult psychosis, and, more specifically, between childhood abuse and schizophrenia.” See at p. 450 in ‘Child abuse and psychosis: A literature review and implications for professional practice.’ Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 448-456. Psychotic symptoms have long been observed in the aftermath of a range of traumatic life events: for example, lifetime exposure to interpersonal violence just like in my case and for people with severe mental illness varies between 48 and 81% (Jacobson, A., and Richardson, B. (1987). ‘Assault experience of 100 psychiatric inpatients: Evidence of the need for routine enquiry.’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 908-913). Further evidence that trauma can lead to psychotic states can be found by examining studies of concentration-camp survivors. Eitenger (1964, 1967) studied survivors in Norway and Israel and found that a core group of patients, particularly those in Israel, clearly met the schizophrenia criteria for that time, and he attributed this to the trauma they had experienced in the concentration camps. Klein, Zellermayer, and Shanan (1963) and von Baeyer (1977) described psychosis among some Nazi-concentration camp victims. Beebe (1975), describing a long-term follow-up of Pacific Theater prisoners of World War II, found a marked increase in schizophrenia in those prisoners who had experienced the most severe traumas. Most recently, Kinzie and Boehnlein (1989), in a study of Cambodian refugees who suffered trauma as a consequences of the Pol Pot regime, concluded that the symptoms of PTSD and psychosis coexist in this population. Whilst there is some support for the view that traumatic events such as combat may be associated with the development of psychosis. See at page 336 of Anthony P. Morrison, Lucy Frame and Warren Larkin (2003). ‘Relationships between trauma and psychosis: A review and integration’. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 331-353. It should be noted that the briefs provided to Drs. Goldney, Davis and others are not precisely matching the summaries of my psychiatric episodes. The brief has been constructed to suit the needs of the r
  11. Nina and Darda seen at Adelaide Uni on 13/3/09 with draggy suit case????

    Darda is in facebook and uses adam.com.au to comment on Rana

  12. FDN
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

    No 281 of 2009

    BETWEEN

    Ranjit Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana

    Appellant

    and

    Police

    Defendant

    OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION

    Date of document:

    Filed by the appellant Ranjit S.J.B. Rana of Unit 1/25 Hackney Road, Hackney SA 5069

    If the above addresses are not the addresses for service under Rule 58, state the addresses for service:

    Settled by Ranjit Rana

    Date and time of filing or transmission:

    OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION

    The grounds of appeal are:

    1. The learned magistrate denied natural justice to the appellant by not properly considering the principles set out in Rana v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCAFC 192 at [3] concerning fresh evidence based collateral attack on the decision of the magistrate for granting restraining order on the appellant in his absence and related appeals per the decision of House of Lords in Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529. The particulars are:

    • I had argued per Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 per Lord Diplock at 362 in general considerations of public policy, the Court said:
    We cannot of course shut our eyes to the possibility that a criminal defendant may be wrongly convicted, perhaps because his defence was ineptly prepared or conducted. When that occurs, it represents an obvious and serious injustice. There are two possible solutions. One is to relax the present restraint on seeking to establish that injustice by civil action. The other is to ensure that in appropriate cases, the conviction itself can be reviewed. It seems to us clear that it is this second solution which has, over the past century, been favoured: by giving a criminal defendant a right of appeal; by providing a relatively low standard for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal; by empowering the standard for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal, by empowering the appellate court to order a new trial; by giving the Home Secretary power to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal; and proposals to establish a new review body.

    (i) The learned magistrate did not properly consider and overlooked “fresh” medical reports of Professor Bal Jha, the treating psychiatrist of the appellant in terms of inference made by HH Justice David, which was erroneous that the appellant was observed by him to be danger to Ms. Nina Gregurev in her perceived and psychotic apprehension of fear concerning the appellant that was not supported by reasonable evidence.

    The affidavit filed in this matter dated 9/2/2009 at paragraphs 4 to 6 relates to Professor Bal Jha’s psychiatric reports which was missing in the full court hearing. However, I had provided all the original copies to the hearing magistrate, which he overlooked them all based on the “misapprehension of facts” that HH Justice David made that the original hearing magistrate was so satisfied and that he could not intervene ‘but for” the appellant was absent at hearing, and thus he was satisfied with all evidence of Nina Gregurev and the police. The crux of the “fresh evidence” and/or “additional evidence” of the appellant is per the exhibits in this affidavit and related exhibits at “D” and “E” which are self-explanatory. I must clarify that at no stage I could finalise the exhibits of the affidavit as the full court went to make a decision without the affidavit could be affirmed with several exhibits with Professor Jha’s reports. Further, I provided the hearing magistrate in this matter “significant changes of the appellant’s circumstances” being:-

    ● The appellant was presenting “fresh” and/or “additional evidence to do collateral attack on all decisions on the matter based on the legal principles of Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 per Lord Diplock at 362 in general considerations of public policy.
    ● The appellant was denied “natural justice of procedural fairness” arising “misapprehension of facts” by the original hearing magistrate, Justice David and the Full Court above it, and further by the magistrate in this matter. How? Because, the reports of Professor Jha, and now in the affidavit in this matter of the appellant and specifically exhibits “B”, “C” and “F” [that is lumped by the Supreme Court Registry staff who have copied my original affidavit out of context, that compromises eight pages of Darda Gregurev’s blog posting maintained by her daughter Nina Gregurev in http://ninagregurev.blogspot.com…. dated 05/0/2009, report of David Miller dated 10 July 2008 (which Justice David referred to as being satisfied that being collaborative to Nina Gregurev’s affidavits as the appellant being unstable). The appellant argues that no reasonable court could be so satisfied with the opinion of a Consultant Physician to that of the opinion of Psychiatrists like Professors Jha and Goldney. Both have never referred to the appellant as being dangerous to Nina Gregurev and/or being unstable to be danger to the appellant himself and/or others ever. Thus, this Court should be satisfied to overturn the decisions of all Courts as being prejudicial to the appellant based on the “misapprehension of facts” and “error in law” being denial of natural justice arising irregularities at all levels of the Court. The particulars are:

    1. The report of Dr. Miller highlights the appellant suffering from stress and drug reaction from anti-psychotic medications dated 10/7/2008 continuing from the exhibit “F” after Darda Gregurev’s blog entry. The following turnover page is a copying of another Dr. David Miller’s report on the appellant dated 8/7/2008. It showed that I went to him for a review and that he reported that there had been some psychiatric setbacks and medication doses had been increased, and as a result the Fenofibrate reaction occurred to me. I normally see this doctor every six months. Thus, I did not know I was having psychiatric setbacks from the drug reaction being myalgia or severe pain with my muscles. Thus, I was not motivated to attend the original hearing of restraining order confirmation on 4/7/2008. This 8/7/2008 was the first time I learnt about not being fit physically, psychiatrically and psychosomatically. This facts, I was trying to convey as to why I did not attend the confirmation hearing, and I tried to convey to all tiers of Court, which all of them provided reasons and decisions against me such medical and psychiatric based “misapprehensions of facts” that the respondent twisted around to convince them all, and I was denied natural justice. Another, report of Dr. David Miller dated 11/8/2008 confirms my drug reaction again in exhibit “F” of the appellant’s affidavit dated 9/2/2009 in this matter. Again, there is another report of Dr. David Miller dated 11/8/2008, which all tiers of the Courts overlooked, and forms the basis of this appellant that all of the tiers of the Court arrived at such “misapprehensions of facts” to deny this appellant “natural justice.” Lastly, after this report in the affidavit of the appellant dated 4/8/2008, which incorporates Professor Goldney’s psychiatric report, which is self-explanatory and does not conclude that this appellant being ever danger to himself and/or Nina Gregurev and other members of public. The exhibit material “B” in the appellant’s affidavit dated 9/2/2009, which is report of Dr. Peter D. Stevenson dated 15/10/2008 further clearly shows that appellant has never been violent to anyone, and this doctor was familiar with the appellant’s home country. Lastly, exhibit “C”, which is a report of Dr. Henry Fellner dated 22/6/08 showed that the appellant was not well from 15/6/08 to 30/12/2008 for studies and examinations at Deakin University. This evidence was totally rejected by police and Courts above it overlooked this report as being not useful. Lastly, the appellant was very distressed to learn that the Chief Justice of the SA Supreme Court His Honour Doyle has a son, who is a Barrister named Sam Doyle. Sam Doyle was involved to make the appellant bankrupt for Chief of Army in August 2008 in the Federal Magistrate Court. Just before the Chef Justice was handing the decision (same day), the appellant saw father and son sitting in Gouger Street and having coffee and pointing finger at the appellant. There was no way the appellant could had known the Chief Justice would deliver the decision on 12/12/2008 and protest that he not do so. See exhibit “G” in the appellant’s affidavit dated 9/2/2009 in this matter. Thus, in sum the appellant submits that he has been denied natural justice of fairness at all levels of Court based on irregularities on the “misapprehensions of facts” of psychiatry and medicine as the appellant was not well and he did not know this fact much later as to why he was not in right frame of mind and physical health. Thus, there is significant force in the argument that relates to significant change of the appellant’s medical and psychiatric circumstances as to why he did not attend to the original conformation hearing, and the fresh and additional evidence was significant to overturn the decisions of all Courts, which the magistrate overlooked in bad faith and was manifestly unfair and unreasonable. Therefore, this Court should intervene to overturn the decision of the presiding magistrate “in the interest of justice.”

    (ii) The learned magistrate overlooked the affidavit of Ms. Lin Martin of Deakin University, which was an exhibit of the appellant in his affidavit before him. In this evidence showed SA Police intelligence had fabricated evidence and contacted Ms. Gregurev in end of 2007 that the appellant was going to rape her, and causing her fear and taking up the restraining order.

    The appellant tried to pursue the learned magistrate that “there was significant change of circumstances”, which was Ms. Lin Martin of Deakin University, had made an affidavit to Victoria Administrative Appeals and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Tribunal, which was an exhibit before him to show as “fresh” and/or “additional” evidence that came the appellant’s way after the confirmation of the restraining order by extraordinary chain of events. The appellant argued before the learned magistrate that he should consider it and be so satisfied the police from South Australia had fabricated information that the appellant was going to rape her, as such information was illegally being communicated to Deakin University and Nina Gregurev between 18 and 22/12/2008. This is inconsistent with SA Police intelligence as the affidavit material before the learned magistrate showed such email was sent to Deakin University by Nina Gregurev herself. The hearsay affidavits of Nina Gregurev and SA Police before the learned magistrate and the SA Supreme Court (before HH David J) based on what the appellant learned reading Cross on Evidence and the decision of Lander J in Rana v University of South Australia (2004) FCA 559 that refers to s. 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), which in simple terms the affidavits of Nina Gregurev and SA Police were hearsay, and in interlocutory hearing they failed to adduce the source of their knowledge, and all tiers of Court erred to reject such hearsay evidences of the respondent and causing the appellant unfairness and such legal prejudice. The learned magistrate overlooked the appellant trying to bring his attention per exhibit “D” in the appellant’s affidavit dated 9/2/2009 before this Court, and specifically the judgment in Rana v University of Adelaide (No 2) [2008] FCA 494 at [2]-[7]. The judgment of HH Lander J demonstrate that such fear causing email to police was not sent by the appellant. The SA Police knew that the appellant had no conviction as a rapist by the name as Indian Rajaratnam. Thus, the appellant did not ever boasted to rape Nina Gregurev as claimed by her, her mother in the blog, or by the SA Police to her between 18 to 22/12/2008. Why?

    The fresh and/or additional evidence of Lin Martin before the learned magistrate in her affidavit more probably than not shows Nina Gregurev and SA Police intelligence via Phil Chadler framed hearsay affidavits to harm the reputation of the appellant as they knew that all interactions between the appellant and Nina Gregurev occurred between 1989 to 2008 occurred at Adelaide. By taking restraining order at Elizabeth and knowing the appellant’s health, as Phil Chandler was present for subpoenas issued by Australian Government Solicitors at Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning the appellant compensation claims against the Australian Army. The SA Police made a deliberate strategy for restraining order that the appellant would not make it to Elizabeth. This was fraudulent conduct on theirs’ part to deny the appellant a fair hearing. This was police collusion to make Nina Gregurev win the case as her younger brother is a cureent SA Police Officer serving in Elizabeth (SA Police Vietnamese Prosecutor Hoang told the learned magistrate that all matters between the appellant and Nina Gregurev occurred at Adelaide, which was fraudulent claim to shop for theirs’ right legal forum). They succeeded as the appellant had a burden that he could not meet for 2/7/2008 or 4/7/2008 confirmation hearing. Thus, ‘in the interest of justice’ the restraining order should be quashed.

    The appellant argues that the learned magistrate’s court files has the thick affidavit, which was meant as “fresh” and/or “additional” evidence along with twenty pages of solid submission formulated Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 per Lord Diplock at 362 in general considerations of public policy. However, the learned magistrate rejected them all citing the Full Court’s decision as an attempt of “re-litigation”. Based on the Full Court’s decision the learned magistrate decided that there was “no significant changes to the circumstances” as submitted by SA Police, who did not wanted to even read all the evidential materials of the appellant and twenty pages of submission. Thus, the appellant submits here below:

    1. The learned magistrate overlooked the test for fresh and/or additional evidence. The above authorities reveal that the circumstances in which further evidence may be received in this Court on appeal are not limited by the principles laid down in authorities such as Wollongong Corporation v Cowan [1955] HCA 16; (1955) 93 CLR 435 which concern common law procedures.
    2. Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade [1991] 102 ALR 487 at 489-91, which was suggested that this formulation for applicable legal principles for fresh evidence was set too high a threshold.
    3. The Court did not identify basic tests for fresh evidence like 1. The fresh evidence could not have been obtained for the original trial with reasonable diligence. 2. The fresh evidence must be credible. There must be a high probability of a different verdict if the fresh evidence had been available at the trial.
    4. The Court overlooked the argument put by the appellant like per Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ in Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36; (1992) 176 CLR 256 at 266-267 and Sheppard J in Joyce v GIO (NSW) reported in Ritchie’s Supreme Court Procedure, New South Wales, vol. 2, pp 8551-8552. But cf Watson v Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust; Murray v Figge; Hughes v Hill. Further, in Celestino v Celestino (Spender, Miles and von Doussa JJ, unreported, 16 August 1990) at page 7.

    In sum, the appellant was denied natural justice of procedural fairness by all tiers of courts based on “misapprehensions of facts” and arising discretion of the magistrates and justices, which was manifestly unreasonable based on the appellant’s above observations. The appellant submits to this Court all the fresh evidence and/or additional test related threshold is met by the appellant to link what Lord Diplock has said in the above cited legal principle. Thus, the decision should be quashed.

    2. The learned magistrate overlooked the entire affidavit of the appellant and 20 pages of outline of submission before him, which were tied to the grounds of appeal per the appellant’s reason for showing him significant change of circumstances. The particulars are:

    (i) The learned magistrate overlooked as to why the appellant did not appear before the confirmation hearing arising the appellant’s myalgia or pain as a result of anti- psychotic drug reaction and aggravation of his diabetes. There was medical report of Dr. LL Neonello, a Consulting Physician, and of Professor Bal Jha on the appellant. He overlooked to apply to set aside the decision he made restraining the appellant per s. 104 (i) (b) (i) and (iv) of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules 1992 or equivalent in the criminal jurisdiction.

    The learned magistrate had both reports before him as fresh and/or additional evidence in his files that the appellant sent him by registered post long before the hearing, which was to illustrate to him about the appellant’s “significant change of circumstances” under the law. Further, the learned magistrate had all the materials described by the appellant above to demonstrate irregularities of the SA Police and the Court administration per s. 104 (i) (b) (i) and (iv) of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules 1992 or equivalent in the criminal jurisdiction. However, he overlooked all facts and legal principles advanced by the appellant above. He overlooked Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 per Lord Diplock at 362 in general considerations of public policy in bad faith, as his discretion was manifestly unreasonable, and for his justification just regurgitated the decision of the Full Court. Lastly, the learned magistrate was in “misapprehension of facts” that all the affidavit material and related exhibits before him was before the full court and Justice David below it, which was not the case, as the appellant has cited how in his 9/2/2009 dated affidavit and related exhibits (emails) the appellant complained to the Supreme Court Registry that his appeal book was not forwarded by the appeal clerk to the Full Court with his 20 pages of submission that linked it page by page. The learned magistrate overlooked this irregularity. Because, the full court’s judgment shows no appeal book was present, and they had before them only notice of appeal (leave) and submissions of the appellant.

    (ii) The learned magistrate dismissed the application for revocation of the restraining order within 2 minutes, and without giving the appellant any chance to argue orally about the application and points of facts and law.

    No reason was given for adequacy purpose apart from inaudible guttural speech. The decision of the learned magistrate is inconsistent with s.25D Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). Which says:

    Content of statements of reasons for decisions
    Where an Act requires a tribunal, body or person making a decision to give written reasons for the decision, whether the expression “reasons”, “grounds” or any other expression is used, the instrument giving the reasons shall also set out the findings on material questions of fact and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.

    (iii) The learned magistrate made factual error that was not supported by evidence in that he indicated the appellant’s affidavit contained materials already considered by the full court and such the matter was an attempt to re-litigate the matter, in which he had been satisfied and further fortified by the non appearance of the appellant before him at the confirmation date.

    The appellant argues that the affidavit dated 9/2/2009 before this Court and exhibit “D” has the Full Court’s judgment (see after copies of draft affidavit to the full court) in Rana v Police [2008] SASC 347 at [7]-[9]. Why?

    Because, the Full Court’s decision was tainted with “misapprehension of facts” and as of the above errors of law that the appellant has identified, namely denial of natural justice, and irregularities at Elizabeth Magistrates Court, and the Supreme Court itself as to the appellant’s appeal book not being forwarded in time for consideration by the Full Court in time. See exhibit “E” of the appellant’s email appended to the appellant’s affidavit of 9/2/2009. Thus, all tiers of courts overlooked the appellant’s proper collateral attack on them based on Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 per Lord Diplock at 362 in general considerations of public policy, where the appellant should satisfy according to law that his circumstances has significantly changed arising irregularities at all tiers of the courts, misapprehensions of facts that mattered hearsay evidence of Nina Gregurev and SA Police in theirs affidavits, misapprehensions of facts by the Court about the appellant’s psychiatric and medical condition that he was dangerous to himself and Nina Gregurev as accumulative and corroboratory evidence, misapprehensions of facts about information of SA Police to Nina Gregurev by the Courts and now contradicted by affidavit of Lin Martin and the decision of Lander J cited by the appellant above. Now, the appellant argues all allegations and hearsay evidence of the respondent looks very implausible and tainted with exaggerations and unreasonable allegations from a psychotic Nina Gregurev with long psychiatric (psychotic) history of violence to her mother and others. In 1996, Nina Gregurev cited the appellant was stalking her as an Indian rapist when she knew that the appellant was from Nepal and much more. Serious miscarriage of justice has occurred against the appellant. Considerable doubt stands what Nina Gregurev and SA Police says that violence and fear exists on Nina’s mind, which is very impausible as she has talked and has maintained a dedicated Website about the appellant.

    (iv) The learned magistrate did not give the appellant opportunity to make submission that all the materials before him to prove significant change of circumstances was based ‘in the interest of justice’ as the above police evidence was fraudulent and most of the affidavit materials of police and Ms. Gregurev were hearsay and was not admissible in court.

    The appellant cites various facts above and further argues that the magistrate did not give the appellant to argue orally in the hearing that mattered how the appellant’s circumstances has changed belatedly and proposed tendering fresh and/or additional evidence per the legal principle set out in Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 per Lord Diplock at 362 in general considerations of public policy. Even, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia gave the appellant opportunity for a collateral attack based on this legal principle. However, the learned magistrate and courts above him considered as an abuse of process to re-litigate, which was against public policy as the mattered was confirmed in the appellant’s absentia arising mental and physical incapacity shown above and via several reports in the magistrates court files.

    (v) The learned magistrate would not hear that the Chief Justice’s Barrister son had made the appellant bankrupt and that he made the ruling in a bias manner against the appellant. Further, that the full court made the decision based on submission and the appeal clerk Serafino (who retired) failed to provide the appeal book to the full court and that portion was the basis of fresh evidence before the learned magistrate, and he erroneously failed to consider the fresh evidence per the principles set out in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade [1991] 102 ALR 487 at 489-91. Further, the learned magistrate has failed to provide reasonable and cogent reasons for his decision.

    (See Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth.) s.25D Content of statements of reasons for decisions where an Act requires a tribunal, body or person making a decision to give written reasons for the decision, whether the expression “reasons”, “grounds” or any other expression is used, the instrument giving the reasons shall also set out the findings on material questions of fact and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based). No adequate reason was given with the decision.

    Alternatively, in sum, thus, the decision should be quashed.

    3. The police prosecutor contacted the bankruptcy trustee and the appellant was advised on 1/7/2007 by the trustee that he had no legal right to take the matter up in the confirmation hearing. Based on the misleading and deceptive legal advice of the trustee the appellant while ill took no basis to go for the confirmation hearing. Now, the appellant has established that he has legal basis to have the revocation of that restraining order confirmed on 2 or 4/7/2008. The bankruptcy is being heard for special leave as the way coercion and use of ‘deeds of settlements’ was used by the son of the SA Supreme Court Chief Justice is a legal challenge.

    Alternatively, thus, the decision should be quashed.

    In conclusion the appeal should be allowed and the decision of the learned magistrate to be quashed, and remitted to be heard by a new magistrate.

    The appellant seeks the following orders:
    1. The whole of the judgment of the learned magistrate to be quashed.
    2. The matter to be heard by a new magistrate according to law.
    3. Incidental cost in this appeal of A$ 150.

    …………………………….
    Appellant Ranjit Rana

  13. Ranjit Rana – as always – is posting long and boring rants trying to justify his existence. RUBBISH, Rana. You are a LIAR, and a VEXATIOUS LITIGANT whose only interest in life is harassing and insulting other human beings in the hope of making yourself look and feel more important than anyone else around you. In addition, you continually try to EXPLOIT the Australian community by pursuing MONEY which you attempt to get through sueing anyone and anything that takes your fancy.

    You send emails in other people’s names – and post notices that way too. EVERY NOTICE ABOVE WAS POSTED BY RANJIT RANA – a weak and see through attempt to JUSTIFY your LOUSY REPUTATION by having “friends” “support” your ravings.

    Rana, YOU are a loser in life and you have inflicted it ALL on yourself. You did not need any help to be or become an idiot – you were born that way. If you did not live in Australia, courtesy of your poor ex-wife, you would be a yakshaver in Nepal, impoverished, drunk as often as possible, and snorting whatever came to hand. What a pity you don’t live there anymore – YOU could become the next idiot-savant who will NOT EAT for YEARS!!! Hah Hah How easy it is to fool the poor and ignorant – you would be so good at that Rana. Go home! You are not wanted here by anyone.

  14. See OUT YOUR CYBERSTALKER! GREGUREV vs RANJIT RANA on the following:

    http://dardagregurev.googlepages.com/

    for correct information on that fool Ranjit Rana who continues to submit unrelated comments on other people’s websites and blogs.

    You WILL find a comment by his daughter MAYA RANA. Also, see Ranjit Rana’s answer to her – very informative for all people being taken to court by him. IT ILLUSTRATES HIS LOVE FOR MONEY AND TALL BLONDES.

  15. I saw your daughter and you at 38 Gelndtuart Road Magill at 2 PM. The volvo car was at home no!

    I want to save Nina and you cannot deny this. Do not be like holocast denier or that your Ninse does not have schizoaffective disorder and you have paranoid scizoid personality disorder and related psychosis. Your mother gene pool makes you at risk over 21 times to ge psychosis over general population. That is why your sis did harakiri supku no!

    Nina loves the man, and he does not want to have any children from her for protecting his gene pool!

  16. M Rana, on January 15th, 2008 at 3:45 am Said:
    Ranjit. You are full of shit. How dare you claim that you are my father, indeed you are nothing as an abusive psycho apparently as your father was. I know what you did to my mother, and she never said one word. Everyone else has told me what horror you bestowed on her.

    And what sort of man are you to think you have ANY claim into the person I am today. You are a dead beat father who has not contributed financially or materialistically to my upbringing. You owe thousands of dollars in child-support none of which ever was paid.

    You are a stranger to me. That is how I have wanted to keep it since I was 11 years old. I have knowledge of who I am am and what I want since then, and I dont want you or your shit in my life. You are a waste of space.

    Finally stop writing letters to my mother, why do you do that? Go out and get a job!! She left you decades ago, you are hearing from me directly I DONT WANT ANYTHING EVER TO DO WITH YOU. So you no longer need to waste time, energy or thought into attempting to contact us.

    AND the final straw was you contacting my workplace, its borderline stalking, and if you do something ever like this again. I will be taking the matter forward with legal action and police involvement hastily.

    Forget us so that you stop your psychotic behavior in contacting us. We are estranged from you for many reasons. Stop telling people to google me, I do not identify myself as Nepalese, I AM AUSTRALIAN, and will not tolerate this absurdity.

    You need not post your family history on the web, no body cares! LIKE I SAID STOP WASTING TIME ON THE NET AND GO GET A JOB, YOU BUM!

    Ranjit S.J.B. Rana, on January 18th, 2008 at 6:40 am Said:
    The abuse of a child that was poisoned by an uneducated Oz grandma called Pauline. Hey what a mess? duh!

    This is directly from my dear Maya Rana.

    Dear child, you know I contributed to you and your mother financially. Sheused it in the G. Whitlam (labor looney) mattered Family Court. Your mother fought me in the Family Court from 1982 till 1989. I own the access via trial.

    What you did was not smart by going cold on me.

    I gave my life to military service and I have my own karma (being sexually abused as a child in Jesuit Irish American school in Nepal) and that can be termed mitigating situation.

    Well, if you are educated and do not understand ‘real suffering’ of ‘real people’ then apart from being a ‘walking human hanger’ I am afraid you are another Pauline = Paulette aka racist and evil Hanson of a ‘white Australia’ yester year policy.

    Grow up child and know your dad is not a dead beat. He has own many battles and yet is going to win the mother of them all….Australia and the Oz Army. You keep your foul mouth open then you get not even a dime.

    You are what you are good on ya ‘me moy matey ‘daugther.

    I am suing your The News.com blog for defamation. Go on doing and I keep on counting and making money. I will go laughing all the way to the bank. ha ha ha and you will get nothing.

    Where is your compassion you silly dill Oz cow?

    Learn what is true and what is false! It seems you do not know about it as you have been brained washed by your silly Pauline!

    How do you know if I have a job or not? I have now given all my possession to the unfortunates in Nepal and beyond to return to stardust.

    I was born naked and die 6 feet down under naked. You are just a gene program between me and your whacky and negative mother. So shall you continue me dear.

    I wish you all the best and watch.

    I have my good friend Dr. Deepak Raj Pant, Chairman of Nepalese in Victoria to monitor my interest. You have known him and his daughter In Adelaide.

    So long for now. Don’t me cranky that I do not give you any $$$$$ with your silly dinky oz oddity.

    You appear as a ladette and my wish is that grow up as a suitable lady.

    Love

    Ranjit Rana

  17. I did not read Ranjit Rat Rana’s comments above. What was he doing on the 19th March in front of Nina’s property? Yes, the Volvo was parked there at that time. Nina however was at the Barr Smith Library. What were you doing at her place you little shit – have you forgotten Nina has a RESTRAINING ORDER against you?

    By the way people, Rana is totally DELUDED. Nina is perfectly well, reasonably happy, and doing well at university.

    Yes, world, I (Darda) once mentioned my late mother suffered severely from a number of illnesses after years in a German CONCENTRATION CAMP while a young teenager during World War II. Ranjit Rana – ignorant, malicious – seems to consider this something I should be ashamed of. Hello!! Such a hypocrite! RANJIT RANA tries to PRETEND to suffer from PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA in order to try to sue the Australian Defence Force for “giving or causing his Schizophrenia – oh, and his DIABETES!” and if anyone – like the Nepalese Club in Adelaide – says he is a madman he takes them to Court – to sue for money, of course, as they insult HIS reputation! What reputation, you may well ask! RANJIT RANA IS DESPISED WHEREEVER HE GOES – NOTE HIS DAUGHTER MAYA RANA’S COMMENTS ABOVE.

  18. What kinda mo r u? Send Ninsie to Hospital of Modbury just she tell u r a wutch Witch! Ho ho ho

  19. Subject: Oz contribution to the world!!!! Topic: Topic 6 Tools of Counter-Terrorism
    Author: RANJIT RANA Date: 14 April 2008 8:58 AM

    International Counter-Terrorism
    The Australian Government is cooperating closely with key partners, particularly in South-East Asia, to bring terrorists to justice and to prevent further terrorist attacks. Australia’s substantial international counter-terrorism efforts, which include capacity building assistance and information sharing, are focused on law enforcement, intelligence, border and transport security, diplomacy, defence, terrorist financing, legal capacity, countering the threat of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism, and promoting inter-faith understanding.

    Key elements of Australia’s international counter-terrorism efforts include:

    Bilateral engagement, particularly in South-East Asia and through our 13 counter-terrorism memorandum of understandings with Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Brunei, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey
    Multilateral engagement in forums such as the UN, ASEAN, ARF, APEC, PIF and CTAG, as well as in issue-specific groups such as the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
    Initiatives such as the Bali Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism (February 2004) and the Sub-Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism (March 2007)
    Cooperation and coordination with other key partners and capacity building donors, such as the US, UK, Japan and the EU
    Enhanced engagement with Australian academia and the private sector.
    The Department’s Counter-Terrorism Role
    Ensure a comprehensive and integrated policy approach to combatting terrorism internationally and in facilitating cooperation between Australian agencies and their counterparts in other countries on counter-terrorism issues
    Support and coordinate the international counter-terrorism capacity building initiatives of Australian agencies, including through management of the inter-departmental International Counter-Terrorism Coordination Group
    Monitor and respond as appropriate to international terrorism developments
    Coordinate and promote activities to counter the threat of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism
    Engage in international interfaith outreach activities
    Administer legislative arrangements for freezing terrorists’ assets
    Advise Australians resident and travelling overseas and Australian businesses about terrorism-related security threats
    Ensure the security and integrity of Australia’s passport issuing system
    Ensure the security of Australian embassies and consulates abroad
    Liaise with foreign diplomats and consular missions in Australia, and with relevant Australian agencies, with respect to the protection of those missions and other premises and visiting foreign dignitaries.
    Dealings with Terrorists – Australia’s international obligations
    What Australians and Australian businesses need to know
    To meet Australia’s international obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373 to freeze the assets of terrorists, the Government has passed laws that make it a criminal offence to hold assets that are owned or controlled by terrorist organisations or individuals, or to make assets available to them, punishable by up to five years imprisonment. DFAT maintains a Consolidated List of individuals and groups to which this terrorist asset freezing regime is applications. Currently there are over 540 individuals and groups listed.

    More information on Australia’s terrorist asset freezing regime.

    DFAT maintains close contacts with Australia’s financial sector to ensure asset freezing arrangements take account of the sector’s legitimate interests. Australian businesses, in particular exporters, should also be aware that it is their responsibility to ensure that they do not do businesses with an individual or groups listed on the Consolidated List.

    In addition to the Consolidated List, the Australian Government also maintains a list of groups that are proscribed as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. Go to the National Security Australia website to view the Criminal Code list of ‘terrorist organisations’. If a group is listed as a ‘terrorist organisation’ it is an offence to:

    direct the activities of the organisation
    recruit persons to the organisation
    receive training from or provide training to the organisation
    receive funds from or make available funds to the organisation
    provide support or resources to the organisation
    Links
    Other Australian Government Departments
    National Security Hotline (1800 123 400)
    Attorney-General’s Department
    Australian Customs Service
    Australian Federal Police (AFP)
    Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)
    Australian Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
    Department of Defence
    Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC)
    Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS)
    Protective Security Coordination Centre (PSCC)
    External Sites
    UN Action Against Terrorism
    Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum Counter-Terrorism Task Force
    Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Transnational Crime and International Terrorism
    ASEAN Regional Forum Documents
    Building International Political Will and Capacity to Combat Terrorism – G8 Counter-Terrorism Action Group (CTAG)
    Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
    Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering
    Asia-Pacific Group on Money Laundering
    Other Resources
    Sub-Regional Ministerial Conference on Counter-Terrorism
    Bali Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism
    Protecting Australia Against Terrorism 2006
    Australia-ASEAN Joint Declaration for Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism, 1 July 2004

    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – Advancing the interests of Australia and Australians internationally.
    R.G. Casey Building, John McEwen Crescent, Barton, ACT, 0221 Australia. Tel: +61 2 6261 1111 Fax: +61 2 6261 3111
    Australian Offices: New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia
    International Offices: Embassies, High Commissions, Consulates, Multilateral Missions and Representative Offices
    ABN 47 065 634 525
    Copyright | Disclaimer | Privacy

    Messages in the thread Display Complete Thread
    Name Author Date
    Oz contribution to the world!!!! RANJIT RANA 14 April 2008 8:58 AM

    Close this window

  20. Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

    Sixty-second General Assembly

    Sixth Committee

    4th & 5th Meetings (AM & PM)

    UNITED STATES TELLS ASSEMBLY’S LEGAL COMMITTEE ANTI-TERRORISM EFFORTS MUST

    STRESS PREVENTION OF GLOBAL EXPANSION, ADDRESS LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES

    Renewing Call for Progress towards Comprehensive Convention,

    Delegates say Bridge-Building among Different Cultures Still Crucial

    The elimination of terrorism would have to go beyond the mere destruction of terrorist leadership, networks and safe havens, and focus on eroding terrorist recruitment and preventing the global expansion of terrorist groups, the United States representative said today as the Sixth Committee (Legal) –- in two meetings — continued an extensive debate on the possibility of adopting a draft comprehensive convention on terrorism during the current session.

    The United States delegate said trusted networks of governments, private citizens, private organizations, multilateral institutions and business groups should work collaboratively to wean at-risk populations away from subversive manipulation by terrorists. Mechanisms would have to be created to address grievances and galvanize public opinion to reject violence as a means of expressing any type of grievance. Pathways must be built for alienated groups to redress legitimate grievances without joining a terrorist network.

    The representative of Singapore said it was impossible to shut down all websites that distorted religious concepts and purveyed pro-terrorist ideas. What could be done, however, was to recognize and reject radical ideologies that attempted to legitimize their violent ways. One such public initiative in his country was a counselling programme conducted by religious scholars and leaders.

    Morocco’s representative noted that the success of efforts to combat terrorism depended largely on international cooperation, and urged dialogue among civilizations, pointing out the need for encouraging bridge-building among different cultures and religions.

    Several delegations urged the Ad Hoc Committee elaborating the draft comprehensive convention to finish its work early, by agreeing on the text as an essential component of completing the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Strategy that was the outcome of the 2005 Summit.

    Ghana’s delegate said conclusion of that convention should form an indispensable part of the implementation strategy of the Global Strategy. Sri Lanka’s representative said the convention would provide a comprehensive legal regime for effectively combating the scourge, while preserving the integrity of international humanitarian law and further energizing the 2006 Counter-Terrorism Strategy.

    The representative of Syria said he was reaffirming Arabic traditions, in both Islam and Christianity, by refuting fundamentalism and condemning terrorism. The concept of the right of peoples under occupation to self-determination should not be mixed into the fight against terrorism.

    While he said he supported holding the long-debated high-level conference on terrorism, the representative of Sierra Leone said “declaring a war on terrorism” was mistaken because terrorism was a phenomenon and could not be a target of war. His country would not have emerged from civil war without engaging in dialogue with rebel groups. Engaging perpetrators did not justify terrorism, but was a means to gain more understanding about it.

    The representative of Israel said that, much as his country wished to see a comprehensive convention concluded as soon as possible, it should not come at the expense of diluting the principles that would make it an effective tool in the fight against terrorism. In the quest for a working definition of international terrorism, Israel said there was a need for legal precision and for moral clarity.

    The representative of Maldives pointed out that small States with limited resources and technological know-how were often unable to address the threats that endangered them. With terrorism perpetrated in one country often crossing into another, it was imperative for the international community to take up the obligation to help protect their security. His country, in the past two weeks, had suffered its first terrorist attack when 12 people were injured by the detonation of a device in a recreational park. Earlier in May, a foreign terrorist organization had used a hijacked “third country” fishing trawler to smuggle weapons and explosives in Maldivian waters.

    Also speaking in the morning meeting were the representatives of Guatemala, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malaysia, Sudan, Algeria, Tanzania, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Belarus, Nigeria, El Salvador, Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Indonesia, Qatar, Botswana, Cambodia, Cuba and India.

    Others speaking this afternoon were the representatives of China, Cameroon, Mexico, Mongolia, Venezuela, Moldova, Iran, Mozambique, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Yemen, Japan, Iraq, South Africa, Uganda, Angola, Philippines, Palau and Niger.

    Cuba’s representative also spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

    The observer of Interpol also addressed the meeting.

    The Committee meets again at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, 15 October, when it will take up the question of criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission.

    Background

    The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this morning to continue its debate on “measures to eliminate international terrorism”, which it began yesterday.

    It had before it three documents, including a report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism (A/62/37) on the work of its eleventh session (New York, 5-6 and 15 February 2007). The Ad Hoc Committee, established under General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, has since 2001 been elaborating a comprehensive convention against international terrorism.

    At its sixty-first session last year, the General Assembly requested the Ad Hoc Committee to expedite its work on the convention. The Ad Hoc Committee is also considering a proposal on the convening of a high-level conference under United Nations auspices to examine international response to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.

    Other documents before the Committee include a report of the Secretary-General (A/62/160) containing information from Governments and international organizations on measures taken to eliminate international terrorism, recent developments on the subject, and information on workshops and training courses on combating crimes connected with international terrorism.

    A letter from Sudan (A/62/291) contains the final communiqué and recommendations of a Conference on Terrorism and Extremism that took place in Khartoum on 24 and 25 July 2007.

    Statements

    ANA CRISTINA RODRIGUEZ-PINEDA ( Guatemala) said the United Nations was the appropriate forum to address terrorism. The Secretary-General’s report contained a good analysis of the juridical tools for countering the phenomenon. Her country had conducted a review of its legislation and had found areas to be updated in line with the conventions on the matter to which it was party. A definition of terrorism should be included in the comprehensive convention that must be finalized as quickly as possible. Regional drug trafficking and related crimes made the situation of vulnerability to terrorism even more difficult. International cooperation should be stepped up to help vulnerable countries. Last week’s workshop by Liechtenstein on the subject of terrorism and human rights had been most helpful.

    MUHAMMAD ALI SORCAR ( Bangladesh) said the comprehensive convention must address the issue of State terrorism. The definition of terrorism should be crafted in such a way that no terrorist activities were spared, whether State-sponsored or committed by non-State actors. There should, however, be a clear distinction between terrorism and the legitimate struggle against colonial domination and foreign occupation, and for self-determination and independence. All wars of liberation were conducted unconventionally, and any attempts to make political use of anti-terrorism sentiments to suppress genuine popular movements for freedom and self-determination were bound to backfire. Those factors must be considered and weighed as a definition of terrorism was constructed.

    HABIB MANSOUR ( Tunisia) said his country associated itself with the statements on behalf of the member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement. The number of terrorist attacks and victims in the past year were assuming alarming proportions. Combating terrorism could be fruitful only when the causes were taken into account. Political and economic inequalities were some of the factors which contributed to the radicalism of those perpetrated terrorist attacks. There must be international cooperation in tackling the phenomenon, taking into account the symptoms as well. Tunisia believed the United Nations should be the proper forum for international efforts to combat the scourge. Tunisia stressed the importance of the implementation of the goals of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.

    He said the consultations on the comprehensive convention should continue in a constructive spirit to resolve all the outstanding issues. Dialogue among civilizations and cultures was the right way to solve differences in the approach to combating international terrorism.

    ZENON MUKONGO NGAY ( Democratic Republic of the Congo) said his country associated itself with the statements made on behalf of the African Group and the Movement of Non-Aligned countries. He said human rights should not be denied in efforts to combat terrorism. Peaceful settlement of disputes and conflict resolution must be promoted, with United Nations mechanisms being employed. He urged cooperation among the agencies of States engaged in counter-terrorism activities. He said his country had acceded to the counter-terrorism legal instruments of the United Nations and had set up agencies to fight the scourge at home.

    He urged Member States to work towards the early conclusion of the draft comprehensive convention against terrorism. The Democratic Republic of the Congo supported the convening of an international conference on terrorism to discuss all its forms and manifestations.

    KAMAL BAHARIN OMAR ( Malaysia) said his country had strengthened its legal framework to implement the counter-terrorism conventions and protocols, and to cooperate with foreign law enforcement authorities in their investigations and criminal prosecutions of alleged terrorists and their activities. Malaysia was now party to eight of the international instruments on terrorism, and had in January signed the convention on counter-terrorism of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Efforts were ongoing to enhance the available mechanisms for international cooperation, such as the Counter-Terrorism Committee, which had conducted a site visit to Malaysia in July 2006 and reported that Malaysia had generally fulfilled its obligations under Security Council resolution 1373.

    He said a high-level conference should be convened to work towards solutions to the broad political issues underlying the United Nations efforts to combat terrorism, including the identification of root causes. A parallel discussion on related issues would not compromise discussions on the substantive provisions of the comprehensive convention. In fact, it could well provide insight and possible solutions.

    ABDALMAHMOOD ABDALHALEEM MOHAMAD ( Sudan) said he supported the condemnation of terrorist acts, including those that were State-sponsored. His country had ratified 12 of the conventions on terrorism and had hosted a seminar in July last year on terrorism and extremism. However, Sudan was concerned that the anti-terrorism effort had lost its way and had taken on a political cast. The confusion between terrorism and the right of people to fight against colonialism, along with the association of terrorism with a specific religion, were both headed in the wrong direction, and only served the interests of “powerful extremists who were terrorists themselves”.

    He said it was “like a holy war”, and the remedy lay in correcting the course in defining terrorism. Dialogue must be encouraged and tolerance promoted, in order to “derail the campaigns against Islam”. A conference on countering terrorism was premature, he said, because it would be lame without a definition of terrorism.

    YOUCEF YOUSFI ( Algeria) said there was no subject on which there should be stronger consensus than on terrorism. All States opposed such acts. The universal and trans-boundary nature of terrorism called for international action. However, the United Nations response was disjointed when it came to addressing the complex causes of terrorism, such as the humiliation suffered by occupied people — a phenomenon that accounted for the eagerness of youth to join terrorist cells. For greater coherence, United Nations counter-terrorism bodies should become unified in a way similar to the peacebuilding mechanism. The comprehensive convention must be adopted. Stubbornness on a definition of terrorism should not stand in the way of such an important juridical instrument.

    ABDULLA HAMEED ( Maldives) said that 12 days ago the spectre of terrorism visited his country. An improvised explosive device was detonated in a recreational park in the capital city of Male. Twelve innocent bystanders were injured. Naturally, the people were in shock and dismay by the first occurrence of that kind in the country’s history. His nation was now firm in its resolve never to allow such cowardly acts of aggression to undermine the peace and tranquillity that characterized its society. The unprovoked incident provided a stark reminder that no State was free from the scourge of terrorism.

    Terrorism perpetrated in one country often crossed into another, he said. He noted an incident last May, when a foreign terrorist organization used a hijacked “third country” fishing trawler for smuggling weapons and explosives using Maldivian waters.

    He recalled that 19 years ago, foreign mercenaries were involved in an armed aggression that threatened his country’s national sovereignty. Their aim was to secure a safe haven, training grounds and a platform for launching attacks in their home nations. Their actions resulted in the loss of many innocent Maldivian lives. Such incidents, and many others elsewhere, clearly depicted the fate of small States. With limited resources and technological know-how, such States were often unable to address those threats that endangered them. It was imperative that the international community take up the obligation of helping to protect their security as stipulated by General Assembly resolutions 44/512, 46/43 and 49/31.

    TULLY MWAIPOPO (United Republic of Tanzania) said it was through international cooperation that States would be able to combat the formidable challenge posed by terrorism. She said multilateralism and the constructive involvement of all stakeholders in the fight against terrorism was imperative, and she commended the United Nations for keeping the issues of international terrorism on the global agenda. In particular, she said, the technical assistance provided by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in countering terrorism was to be praised. She said she welcomed the ratification and implementation of universal legal instruments against terrorism.

    Tanzania, she went on, had been on the alert since the 1998 terrorist attack against its capital, Dar es Salaam, and security at its ports and airports had been strengthened. Its law enforcement agencies had been working closely with their counterparts in other African countries in the fight against illegal migration, drug trafficking, money laundering, and the proliferation of small arms, light weapons and hazardous materials. Her Government had enacted a money-laundering Act in 2006, which established a financial intelligence unit, and also the Prevention and Corruption Act of 2007, to ensure that money gained through corrupt practices and embezzlement was not used to finance terrorism.

    BORG TSIEN THAM ( Singapore) said the international response to terrorism should be multifaceted. Singapore welcomed the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The country had not been spared from the terrorist threat. In 2001 and 2002, its authorities had arrested members of the Jemaah Islamiyah who were plotting bomb attacks at embassies and other terrorist-related activities in Singapore. The cell in the country was part of a larger regional network that was affiliated to Al-Qaida. While the network had been severely disrupted, he said the threat of terror persisted.

    He said that law enforcement was just part of broader efforts to combat the scourge of terror. It was not possible to shut down all websites that distorted religious concepts and purveyed pro-terrorist ideas; neither was it possible to always locate people who were misled by such websites. What could be done, however, was to recognize and reject radical ideologies that attempted to legitimize their violent ways. In Singapore, one such public initiative was a counselling programme conducted by religious scholars and leaders, which tried to correct the distorted interpretations of religion held by extremists who had been arrested. The Government had also launched a national community engagement programme that fostered interfaith understanding, dialogue and trust among the different communities in Singapore.

    HAMID CHABAR ( Morocco) said his country associated itself with the statements made on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African Group. He said the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy showed the importance of the role of the General Assembly as a forum for international action in combating terrorism, and Morocco urged its implementation by all States.

    He said Morocco favoured the early conclusion of the draft comprehensive convention against international terrorism. It also supported various initiatives being taken to combat the scourge, including Egypt’s proposal for an international conference under United Nations auspices to consider all aspects of the problem, as well as the proposal of Saudi Arabia for the establishment of an international counter-terrorism centre in that country.

    He noted that the success of efforts to combat terrorism depended largely on international cooperation, and urged dialogue among civilizations, pointing out the need for encouraging bridge-building among different cultures and religions. Morocco had itself suffered terrorism and strongly condemned it in all its forms and by whomever committed.

    OKSANA PASHENIUK ( Ukraine) said the comprehensive convention with a general definition of terrorism was desirable and possible to achieve during the current Assembly session, even if the definition of terrorist acts was still emerging in specific international instruments. At present, crimes prescribed in treaties were broader than what was generally accepted, and sometimes not all forms of terrorism were covered. A wider accepted international definition of terrorism would eliminate the situation of States being in a position to apply national definitions to terrorism, which opened the door to fragmentation.

    ROBERT TACHIE-MENSON ( Ghana) said the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on terrorism should form an indispensable part of the implementation of the Global Strategy. The four points in the Global Strategy action plan — dealing with the causes of terrorism; combating it; capacity building and ensuring human rights — were all undermined and their impact weakened without that comprehensive instrument.

    He said the work on the convention should be guided by the wording of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document and the Global Strategy, both of which condemned terrorism “in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes”. The formulation could lead the way to unlocking the stalemate on the outstanding issues. Also, the convention should create mechanisms to give comfort, solace and reparation to victims of terrorist acts.

    PRASAD KARIYAWASAM ( Sri Lanka) said it was imperative that the Ad Hoc Committee conclude its work early by adopting the long overdue comprehensive convention, which would provide a comprehensive legal regime for effectively combating the scourge while preserving the integrity of international humanitarian law and further energizing the 2006 Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Since its adoption, Sri Lanka had joined other like-minded countries in campaigning for an international platform of action and strategy while formulating an evolving comprehensive legal regime to eliminate terrorism. Sri Lanka would be hosting an international conference on combating terrorism in Colombo later this month. The comprehensive convention must be adopted so that the international community had the comprehensive legal regime to stem the tide of terrorism.

    BASHAR JA’AFARI ( Syria) said his country reaffirmed Arabic traditions in both Islam and Christianity in refuting fundamentalism. It condemned terrorism and supported the convening of an international conference, as proposed by Egypt, to define terrorism as well as distinguishing it from the right of peoples struggling for freedom and self-determination.

    He recalled that the United Nations had been established in response to calls for peace and justice among peoples of the world, and said he would reiterate the importance of respect for its Charter principles. No State should be allowed to exploit the Organization to redraft those principles.

    The focus should be on the right of peoples under occupation to self-determination. There should be no mixing of that concept with the fight against terrorism. He said that was what some countries were trying to do in their region, in support of Israeli State terrorism since 1967 with the occupation of the Golan Heights.

    He called for the early completion of work on the comprehensive convention against international terrorism.

    SERGEI RACHKOV ( Belarus) said efforts to stem the flow of immigrants into Western Europe were exacerbating terrorism-related problems in his country. The combating of terror was an international effort. Measures and initiatives taken by one group or region should not create difficulties for others. The terms of anti—crime and anti-terrorist agreements made between parties should not be closed. Regional arrangements should also be open.

    IFEYINWA ANGELA NWORGU ( Nigeria) said her country had ratified the 1999 convention for the suppression of financing terrorism in 2003. Legislation had been implemented to provide for freezing of accounts and funds, and the provisions were vigorously enforced. Four anti-terror centres had been established, along with integrity units within each law enforcement agency to prevent and investigate corruption. For international cooperation, Nigeria relied on bilateral agreements for mutual legal assistance in denying safe haven to terrorists.

    She said the international community had set itself high and lofty goals by adopting the counter-terrorism strategy. The implementation task force was welcome in its coordinating role, but care must be taken to avoid duplication of functions and working at cross-purposes. Also, members of the task force must be drawn from nations large and small.

    MS. VALENZUELA ( El Salvador) said it was extremely important to strengthen international cooperation in combating international terrorism; her country was engaged in a number of initiatives at the hemispheric level. Terrorist threats were a menace to humanity the world over. Agreement should be reached on the comprehensive convention. Her country would make all efforts to implement it.

    SIFANA IBSEN KONE ( Burkina Faso) said international terrorism was one of the oldest topics on the United Nations agenda, first appearing in 1972. Much had changed since that time, particularly the ratification of international instruments. The news should be good, and yet terrorism had not abated. Greater cooperation had to be dedicated to the effort, particularly in the area of capacity building. The reputation of the Legal Committee was at stake. The comprehensive convention had to be adopted with the right to self-determination being assured.

    ANGELINE MOHAJY ( Madagascar) said there was need for international cooperation to combat terrorism. Madagascar hoped that the outstanding issues in the negotiations on the draft comprehensive convention against terrorism would be resolved and the text finalized. The instrument should include a clear definition of terrorism, she said, adding that it would be an appropriate framework for the fight against terrorism. Her country supported the convening of an international conference on terrorism.

    She said Madagascar had acceded to 12 United Nations counter-terrorism instruments, and at the national level it had put in place an action plan to deal with terrorism. It had reinforced controls at its ports and borders. Madagascar was cooperating in efforts at the regional level, and welcomed the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy which reflected the willingness of the international community to combat the scourge.

    ADIYATWIDI ADIWOSO ASMADY ( Indonesia) said he associated himself with the positions of ASEAN, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). He said Indonesia, a victim of terrorism, had positioned itself at the heart of comprehensive efforts to overcome the threat. At the bilateral level, it had recently signed a counter-terrorism cooperation agreement with Sri Lanka, and it had organized, with Australia, the Conference on Counter-Terrorism in Jakarta.

    Regionally, he continued, his Government had adopted the ASEAN counter-terrorism convention, and initiated counter-terrorism cooperation with other countries including China, the Russian Federation, the United States and the European Union. On a global level, Indonesia had become party to six counter-terrorism conventions and maintained constant cooperation with the various counter-terrorism committees established by Security Council resolutions. He said it was essential to avoid stereotyping terrorism in terms of religion, nationality or ethnic group. In that context, Indonesia had partnered with the United Kingdom to form the Islamic Advisory Group, to provide advice on countering radicalism and promoting tolerance. It was important to conclude the comprehensive convention on international terrorism, as such an instrument would improve the legal framework for efforts against it. At the same time, it was important to identify the fundamental causes of terrorism; and Indonesia looked forward to broadminded approaches for resolving outstanding issues on article 18 of the draft text.

    SHEIKH MOHAMMED BIN HAMAD AL-THANI ( Qatar) said individual and combined efforts were needed to combat terrorism in vulnerable States. Hopefully, the Ad Hoc Committee would conclude its work soon, and would make a distinction between terrorism and liberation movements. All States should fight terrorism. Qatar had formulated legislation to implement the provisions of international instruments to combat terrorism. Economic and social reforms could be one way of fighting terrorism.

    PHOLOGO JIM GAUMAKWE ( Botswana) said terrorism was one of the single most serious threats to international peace, security and development; Member States must work in a concerted and coordinated manner to “prevent and defeat this menace”. Dialogue on interreligious and intercultural cooperation for peace was valuable but not enough; action was needed too. National and regional institutions should be empowered to consistently work towards establishing mechanisms for building a more peaceful, tolerant and just world.

    He said the timely implementation of global agreements such as the Millennium Development Goals and the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy would also be beneficial. On a regional level, strong cooperation among Member States had already advanced the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on terrorism, and had enhanced capacity building of national law enforcement agencies. The international community should agree on a comprehensive convention, based on a common definition and understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act.

    KOSAL SEA ( Cambodia) called terrorism one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and pledged his support for the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy. Combating terrorism, he said, meant addressing its root causes. More attention and financial resources should be spent on poverty-reduction programmes, especially in societies where citizens, such as unemployed youth, remained vulnerable to recruitment into terrorist networks. It was also important to promote cultures of peace, tolerance and mutual understanding, through constructive dialogue and effective communications.

    He said Cambodia had recently adopted two anti-terrorism laws, one providing a comprehensive legal basis for counter-terrorism efforts and the other to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. In that connection, the National Bank of Cambodia had also circulated the Security Council lists of individuals and entities involved in global terrorism. The Bank has instructed financial and banking institutions to freeze assets and stop transactions with anyone appearing on the lists.

    Since 1999, Cambodia had destroyed more than 200,000 small arms, 233 anti-aircraft missiles and 36 Pictora missiles. The country had acceded to 12 key international counter-terrorism instruments, and had participated in the ASEAN Convention on Counter Terrorism.

    ILEANA NUNEZ MORDOCHE ( Cuba) said Member States needed to conclude the general convention on international terrorism, but in order for it to be “general” it must provide a clear definition of terrorism, and a distinction between it and “people’s struggle for their independence.” Furthermore, Cuba considered it important for the States to look to the world strategy to combat terrorism as a major instrument to guide the actions against it.

    She said Cuba had never allowed, nor would it ever allow, its territory to be used to carry out, mastermind or finance terrorist acts. Yet, the United States Government unilaterally included Cuba on its annual list of States that supposedly sponsored terrorism, despite the fact that funds were granted and collected in Miami and other cities of the United States to carry out terrorist acts. She said the United States also provided a safe haven for terrorists against Cuba. These included Luis Posada Carriles, the mastermind behind the 1997 bombings of Havana tourist resorts, and Orlando Bosch, a terrorist responsible for the downing of a Cuban airliner in 1976, which claimed the lives of 76 innocent civilians. Cuba believed a sincere path in the fight against terrorism should avoid impunity and double standards.

    NIRUPAM SEN ( India) said the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy was welcome, and would hopefully provide the impetus to unite the international community in its fight against terrorism through practical measures that facilitated cooperation in areas of extradition, prosecution, information exchange and capacity building. Even so, there was a great deal to be done to combat the menace that international terrorism had become; without the early adoption of a comprehensive convention, the global struggle against it would remain incomplete.

    Agreement was attainable, he asserted. Serious attempts were being made to resolve the issues and that was encouraging. Delegations should look at all proposals, reach agreement and then finalize and adopt the convention so as to provide a solid legal basis for the fight against terrorism.

    When the Committee met again this afternoon, LIU ZHENMIN ( China) said international terrorist activities had continued unabated in recent years. He quoted relevant reports indicating that there were 14,338 terrorist attacks throughout the world in 2006, a 29 per cent increase from the year before. The situation presented the international community with a daunting challenge. The international legal system in the field of counter-terrorism must be improved and effectively implemented. Attention should also be paid to the root causes of the scourge, and States must commit themselves to addressing them.

    In pursuing those tasks, he said, strict attention should be paid to the principles of the United Nations Charter, and with double standards being avoided. At the national level, he said China had amended its criminal code by adding provisions punishing terrorist financing, and with the enactment of laws against money laundering. He hoped all States would show confidence and good faith, and work towards the conclusion of the comprehensive convention against international terrorism.

    SAMUEL MVONDO AYOLO ( Cameroon) said his country associated itself to the statements made by the representatives of Benin (on behalf of African Group), Cuba (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement) and Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC). He noted that the question of the elimination of international terrorism had been on the agenda of the General Assembly in 1972, and regretted that since then the problem had not been resolved. Terrorism undermined the structures of societies, and the only way to deal with the scourge was to suppress it.

    He said Cameroon had taken, at the national level, a number of measures to deal with terrorism, including the adoption of a comprehensive legal framework to punish links to terrorism, terrorist financing, and attacks against civil aviation. A national agency had been established to investigate money laundering. Cameroon supported the codification of the comprehensive convention against international terrorism. He called for flexibility and political will for the conclusion of convention, and said his country had been trying to implement Security Council counter-terrorism resolutions.

    ALEJANDRO ALDAY GONZALEZ ( Mexico) said there were responsibilities associated with the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. To ensure that Mexico availed itself of all avenues for cooperating with others at both the international and regional levels, a high-level specialized committee had been established by his Government. It coordinated with the United Nations machinery, and ensured that Mexico’s legislation and policies complied with agreed upon regional mechanisms. It was an important tool for strengthening coordination in implementing the Strategy.

    ENKHTSETSEG OCHIR ( Mongolia) urged all States that had not yet ratified the existing 13 international anti-terrorism instruments to do so without delay. He said there should be concerted and redoubled efforts to reach an agreement on outstanding issues, so that a comprehensive convention could be concluded sooner.

    Mongolia had already ratified all of the international anti-terrorism conventions. It adopted a law in 2004 on combating terrorism, and last year enacted a law against money laundering. An evaluation of some of Mongolia’s efforts had been carried out in July during the Asia Pacific Group Meeting in Australia. The results, along with those of five other countries, allowed financial experts and other stakeholders to gain a better understanding of what was needed to effectively combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

    AURA MAHUAMPI RODRIGUEZ DE ORTIZ ( Venezuela) said the root causes of terrorism should be addressed, including by working to eradicate poverty and promoting respect for cultural and religious diversity. In addition, her country had implemented measures at both the national and international levels to directly combat terrorism. For example, three supervisory tribunals and two appeals panels had been established to deal with cases involving terrorism. At the international level, the family of nations needed the comprehensive convention, which must not ignore the right of people to self-determination. A balanced definition of terrorism should be achieved, keeping in mind the right of people to be free of subjugation.

    The international community must come together on fighting terrorism, but political motives must not enter into the matter. For example, her country was still awaiting a response from the United States concerning extradition of a terrorist named Luis Posada Carriles, who was responsible for the death of 73 innocent civilians in October 1976. The commitment to fight terrorism implied that States must refrain from giving aid or safety to terrorists. International commitments should be translated into action.

    ANA RADU ( Moldova) reaffirmed her Government’s strong commitment to fighting terrorism through both national and international efforts. She said most terrorist acts were intended to achieve specific political goals; more attention should be given to terrorism motivated by separatist tendencies affecting sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy legitimized United Nations counter-terrorism efforts. Full implementation of that Strategy and its Plan of Action should be an absolute priority for Member States, although the absence of a clear definition of terrorism was an impediment to uniform implementation.

    She said a binding definition of what constituted a terrorist act would establish “universal rules of engagement” and help define law enforcement efforts. Collective action was necessary, not just to define terrorism but also to overcome the existing backlog in adopting the comprehensive convention. Those were just initial steps, however. It was crucial not to waste time now, but instead begin taking concrete action.

    ESMAEIL BAGHAEI HAMANEH ( Iran) said a consensually agreed legal definition of terrorism was essential, and since the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy failed to come up with such a definition, Iran proposed convening an international high-level conference under the aegis of the United Nations.

    For its part, Iran and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) held a workshop in January 2007 that aimed at discussing the implementation of international anti-terrorism treaties in Iranian domestic law. Iran had also joined a number of bilateral and regional initiatives to promote cooperation against terrorism and transnational organized crime. He said Iran had signed in 2006 the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, and accession to the remaining international anti-terrorism documents was under way.

    CRISTIANO DOS SANTOS ( Mozambique) said his country had become party to 12 universal anti-terrorism instruments, as well as the Organization of African Unity Convention for the Prevention and Combating Terrorism; the process of ratification of the International Convention against Nuclear Terrorism was well advanced. Mozambique was also party to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocols, and it welcomed the expansion of the activities of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in providing technical assistance and capacity-building to developing countries in implementing universal treaties and other relevant international legal instruments related to terrorism.

    He said it was his country’s hope that the work of the Ad Hoc Committee in elaborating the comprehensive convention on international terrorism during the inter-sessional period would bear fruit. It would be an important measure in consolidating the existing counter-terrorism legal framework.

    ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU ( Sierra Leone) noted that although the Security Council had adopted a number of resolutions which helped to reduce terrorist acts, attacks that had taken place since adoption of those resolutions had become more deadly. Thus far, he said, resolutions and declarations that proscribe and prohibit terrorism and provide for the prosecution of terrorist acts had been largely ineffective and lacking enforcement mechanisms.

    He noted that there was still a stalemate on the legal definition of terrorism; politicizing the discussions on adopting a definition was the main reason why it was not included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. He said terrorists should be prosecuted as perpetrators of crimes against humanity, under Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

    He said he supported the call for a high-level conference on terrorism, but talk of “declaring a war on terrorism” was mistaken, because terrorism was a phenomenon, and, therefore could not be a target of war. He said Sierra Leone could not have emerged from its civil war without engaging in dialogue with rebel groups; engaging perpetrators was not intended to justify terrorism, but was instead meant to gain a more complete understanding of the root causes, to further the pursuit of its prevention and eradication.

    EIHAB OMAISH ( Jordan) welcomed the initiative by Saudi Arabia for the creation of a task force to study the establishment of an international centre to counter terrorism, as well as Egypt’s call to convene a high-level conference on counter-terrorism under the auspices of the United Nations.

    Jordan, for its part, had taken concrete steps on the national level that included enacting a new anti-terrorism law and introducing stricter border controls. In addition, he said, all banks operating in Jordan were instructed to comply with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. “Security measures are not enough to uproot international terrorism,” he said. “Political, economic and social factors, and other causes for this abhorrent phenomenon, need to be addressed in order to fully eradicate it.”

    MAJED ALMANSOURI ( United Arab Emirates) reiterated his country’s strong support for the Egyptian proposal for the convening of a high-level United Nations conference on international terrorism. Such a conference should not be contingent on the finalization of the draft comprehensive convention, currently being elaborated. He said there should be a distinction between terrorism and the legitimate struggle of peoples under foreign occupation for self-determination. International efforts to combat terrorism must be based on United Nations Charter principles and other relevant international legal instruments. Double standards must be avoided, and there must be respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Terrorism should not be linked to any particular religion, he said. There was a need for the promotion of dialogue among cultures and religions.

    He reiterated his Government’s condemnation of State terrorism practised by Israel against Palestinians. At the national level, he said his Government had enacted important legislation to combat terrorism, money laundering and drug and arms smuggling.

    JOHN B. SANDAGE ( United States) said terrorism was one of greatest collective challenges of the world today, and no geographic region was immune from its threat. The success of the international community’s efforts to confront extremists should be measured in the broadest perspective. Destroying terrorist leadership, networks, and safe havens was not enough. To eliminate terrorism, the international community would need to erode terrorist recruitment and prevent the expansion of the global reach of terrorist groups. Trusted networks of governments, private citizens, private organizations, multilateral institutions and business groups should work collaboratively to wean at-risk populations away from subversive manipulation by terrorists, and create mechanisms to address people’s needs and grievances, thereby marginalizing the terrorists.

    He said the United States strategy to defeat terrorists was at once global and regional. Globally, all countries should do more to galvanize public opinion to reject violence as an unacceptable means of expressing any type of grievance. Effectively countering violent extremism meant creating pathways for alienated groups to redress their legitimate grievances without joining a terrorist network. To that end, his Government pledged nearly a half-million dollars to the Counterterrorism Strategy Implementation Task Force and called on Member States to contribute as well. In closing, he stressed the need for full and effective implementation of the Counter-Terrorism Strategy and cooperation between Member States and the Security Council’s three counterterrorism committees.

    WANJUKI MUCHEMI ( Kenya) urged States to take measures at the national level to combat terrorism. For its part, Kenya had ratified twelve international conventions. In 2003, it had passed a suppression of terrorism bill, and in 2004, established a Counter Terrorism Centre and an Anti-Terrorism Police Unit. The country was also preparing draft legislation on money laundering, and it had established a specialized unit in the Attorney General’s office to prosecute terrorism and money-laundering cases, and to deal with forfeiture of assets emanating from terrorist activities.

    He said Kenya called on States to move towards the ratification of the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, adding that the international legal framework for the suppression and combating of terrorism would not be fully effective until the international community’s desire for a comprehensive convention on international terrorism was fully realized. It was disheartening, he said, that the elaboration of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism has not been completed because of a few outstanding issues, including the definition of terrorism.

    ADEL HAMOUD AL-SHEIKH ( Yemen) said his country totally condemned terrorism in all its forms, no matter its origins or the perpetrators. He commended members of the Ad Hoc Committee for their work on the elaboration of the comprehensive convention. The phenomenon of terrorism should not be linked to any particular religion, culture or region. Yemen supported the promotion of dialogue and cooperation among all States and civilizations; it also supported the convening of a high-level conference to define terrorism as well as its distinction from the legitimate struggle of people from foreign occupations and for self-determination.

    He said Yemen had acceded to 13 United Nations counter-terrorism instruments. He emphasized the need for follow-up of the various provisions of those legal instruments, and called for regular review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, to correct deficiencies.

    TOMOHIRO MIKANAGI ( Japan) welcomed the adoption of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and attached importance to the early adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. He said the Convention would strengthen the international legal framework capable of bringing justice to those responsible for terrorist acts. In addition, the Convention would enable the United Nations to send a clear and serious message about its commitment to combating terrorism. He called on Member States to be flexible when discussing their positions on terrorism, in order to reach consensus on the issue. He noted that Japan had ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which made Japan a State Party to the 13 legal instruments fighting global terrorism. He encouraged other States to enter into those same instruments.

    RIADH AL-ADHAMI ( Iraq) said the people of his country dealt with terrorism every day, whether in the marketplace or at work. Terrorist activity in his country had led to destruction of the country’s infrastructure. In the war on terror, certain guidelines must be met. Respect for human rights must not be sacrificed. International, regional and national efforts must be so coordinated as to ensure that terrorists had no place to run and take cover. And finally, inequalities in the international marketplace and society must be addressed because terrorism arose from those injustices.

    SABELO SIVUYILE MAQUNGO ( South Africa) said the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted at the General Assembly’s sixty-first session was a step in the right direction, but not enough. The midterm review of the Strategy, planned for later this year, should be used as an opportunity not only to look back, but also to identify milestones for the coming year. Terrorism could not be addressed militarily, and therefore addressing factors conducive to the spread of terrorism was particularly important as part of a holistic strategy. “It is important that we delve deeper and address the definition of terrorism and its causes,” he said.

    ADY SCHONMANN ( Israel) said the absence of a consensus definition of what constituted terrorism undermined the legitimacy of the United Nations and State practice as a whole in dealing with this threat. As much as Israel wished to see a comprehensive convention concluded as soon as possible, it should not come at the expense of diluting the principles that would make it an effective tool in the fight against terrorism. In the quest for a working definition of international terrorism, Israel said there was a need for legal precision and for moral clarity. Israel looked forward to the follow-up process regarding the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, and hoped that substantial elements, which were suggested in the Secretary-General’s report and omitted from the strategy so far, would be reconsidered.

    Israel, for its part, had worked over the past year in an inter-ministerial committee on a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill. The new legislation aimed to address the dilemma of struggling against terrorism while safeguarding human rights, including those of suspected terrorists.

    DUNCAN MUHUMUZA LAKI ( Uganda) said he condemned terrorism as a “cancer which if left unattended posed the risk of spreading to the whole body”. To fight terrorism effectively, he said, it was necessary to identify its root causes and to work towards assigning to it a comprehensive definition. This definition, he said, would expose terrorists and prevent them from hiding under the cover of legitimate struggles.

    He said he supported the International Convention for the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism and the Security Council’s creation of the 1540 Committee. However, the positive intentions of the Committee were seriously undermined by the dumping of toxic waste off the coast of Somalia in the Indian Ocean. He said the dumping could very easily constitute an arsenal for terrorists in their quest for weapons of mass destruction.

    TEODOLINDA COELHO ( Angola) said that, over the past decade, international terrorism had constituted a serious threat to global peace, security and development. As terrorists escalated their methods with progressively more lethal acts, it was essential for the international community to be unified and expeditious in approaching the problem. International financial institutions, the private sector, and regional and subregional organizations were all vital to the effective fight against terrorism and to the creation of capacity building in some States.

    The international community’s efforts had led to some positive results, she said, but work remained to be done. Following the adoption of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the finalization of the draft comprehensive convention was the most important counter-terrorism initiative outstanding from the 2005 World Summit.

    She describes Angola’s participation in various regional initiatives aimed at facilitating cooperation in the field of law enforcement in the area, especially on transnational crime and border control. Angola had ratified the African Convention on Terrorism, and was taking all pertinent measures to ratify the existing convention on terrorism.

    EMMA SARNE ( Philippines) said her country had created a web of regional and international cooperative initiatives to fight terrorism, the regional effort being in context of ASEAN. Legislation made terrorism a crime against the Philippine people and against humanity. The fight against terrorism had to go beyond eradicating terrorist cells. Interfaith dialogue was not just a nicety but a powerful tool, as it had turned out to be in her country. The combination of interfaith dialogue, economic aid and social justice was a mighty forceful weapon against terrorism when it went along with other measures to build State capacity and promote the rule of law. Yet, even as the present discussion went on, thousands were dying from terrorist acts. Her country would do all it could to ensure the speedy adoption of the comprehensive convention.

    ALEXIS BLANE ( Palau) said his country, as a demonstration of its commitment to the global fight against terrorism, had signed 12 of the 13 international conventions against it, and completed its reports pursuant to Security Council resolutions 1267, 1373 and 1624, while nearing the finalization of its report pursuant to resolution 1540. Additionally, the legislature of Palau recently passed detailed and comprehensive legislation to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

    However, she continued, legislation meant little without the ability to enforce it. As a small, developing country, Palau lacked the resources to ensure that counter-terrorism violations were systematically prosecuted. Therefore, Palau urged that international assistance focus on the needs of individual countries struggling to combat terrorism, especially in the area of enforcement rather than legislation. Capacity building in the fight against terrorism should remain at the forefront of United Nations efforts.

    ABDOU ADAMOU ( Niger) said that his country had always contributed to the elimination of terrorism, although its priority was social and economic development. Nothing could justify cruel acts of terrorism against States and individuals. His country had ratified the main legal instruments related to terrorism, and had created a national committee against the scourge. But to implement those legal instruments, he said, the African States needed the technical assistance of the international community.

    Niger pleaded for a coordinated global approach to the fight against terrorism. He also invited the international community to analyze the root causes of intolerance and despair, instead of linking the phenomenon of terrorism to one religion. It was unfair to associate it with Islam. He said terrorists also attacked Muslim countries without distinction. The international media should show responsibility in their reports on terrorist incidents.

    MICHAELA RAGG, Assistant Director to the Special Representative of Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organization) to the United Nations, said the Organization had 186 Member States and supported law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat transnational crimes, among which counter-terrorism efforts were now one of the priorities. It was an active participant in United Nations counter-terrorism efforts and was a leading entity in the working group on “Protecting Vulnerable Targets”. It also supported the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate and had participated in almost all of the country evaluation visits.

    She said Interpol was actively engaged in the United Nations Security Council “Special Notice 10”, which was created in 2005 in close cooperation with the Committee to inform Interpol members about individuals subject to United Nations sanctions. She encouraged Member States to consider recognizing Interpol, along with other regional and international organizations, in the resolution on the elimination of international terrorism currently being negotiated in the Sixth Committee.

    Right of reply

    The representative of Cuba, in a right of reply to the representative of the United States, said the United States knew that Luis Posada Carriles was prosecuted for fraud and for lies to United States Immigration authorities rather than for being an international terrorist. The United States Government also knew that Posada had not been prosecuted for the accusation against him in a 1997 incident; nevertheless the United States Government continued to protect Posada. It was shameful that the United States continued to protect known international terrorists. As long as Posada’s crimes went unpunished, Cuba would continue to raise the issue.

    * *** *

    ——————————————————————————–

    For information media • not an official record

    Messages in the thread Display Complete Thread
    Name Author Date
    All the talk fest on counter terrorsim and UNO just for sharing the great progress so far! RANJIT RANA 12 April 2008 3:37 PM

    Close this window

  21. Ranjit Rana
    Share
    Tag This Photo
    Edit This Photo
    Delete This Photo
    Make Profile PictureAdded June 12 · Comment · LikeUnlike
    You like this.
    Manisha Koirala at 1:33pm June 13
    i met the daughter in dorchestor hotel in london few yrs back,,,i m sooooo happy some one is doing some thing to preserve old architectures..pl look into old palleces too…ur daughter is so beautifull!!! convay my hello to her..i so wanted to open film school n do film festival in nepal…pl do let me know how ur project gose..u ll be doing such a wonderfull thing !!! i m happy.. Shamsher Jung Bahadur at 10:24am June 14
    My sorrow for the passing of Sailaja Acharya, who was my late mum’s good friend in Nepalese literature.

    You can open one you know one Film Studies Institute. If you are interested I will talk with Scott Hicks from my Flinders University. He has made name in Hollywood, and is keen in Buddhism. I have great mates in Film Studies and about Nepal.

    I am on my way to Nigeria to study Nollywood and to have free voice. I like theirs’ low budget and arty films…. Read More

    I am happy you met my daughter. She is a psychologist and social worker now.

    You can send me email about future film projects at rran @deakin.edu.au

    So much for now.

    LOL

    Ranjit Rana Manisha Koirala at 3:58pm June 14
    i would totally be interesed to meet any one who would be excited to open film school in nepal!!! if you really realy can then pl do..thanks m.k

  22. I am amazed that this website tolerates such long rants from that idiot and madman Ranjit Rana. He constantly defames everyone and tries to boost his own importance. Only a fool would fall for Ranjit Rana’s self-important and semi-literate ravings. In one of his ravings above he mentions a page he pretends belongs to Nina Gregurev. It is actually a blogspot that this louse opened in Nina Gregurev’s name. He then posts his rubbish on there – under a variety of aliases – and tries to get people to believe that Nina is writing to him! Idiot. My daughter Nina Gregurev has a RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST RANJIT RANA in South Australia. Ranjit Rana is despised everywhere in Australia especially among those who work and study at universities. REMOVE his comments and ban him from site. Cannot you see that his comments muck up your site completely? Get rid of him.

  23. Mark Fitzpatrick’s article ‘Non-Proliferation and Counter- Proliferation: What is the Difference?’ appeared in Defence & Security Analysis. Volume 24. Number 1 at pages 73 to 79, and dated March, 2008.

    It had only five notes for citations from well known academic journals and also a reputable Website.

    Unfortunately, he did not provide his qualifications and employment designated title or related authority. However, he did provide a place of contact in a well known academic institute overseas.

    The target audiences were academics, and students of international studies, war and peace studies, international relations, political sciences and governmental officials of foreign, military, intelligence and trade departments.

    The problem area was defined, which was contentions about the definitional terms for “non-proliferation” and “counter-proliferation.”

    The author clearly delineated about the confusion stemming from these conceptual difficulties, when no consensus had been reached. However, both contentious definitions were marginally or relatively contributing towards the objectives of stopping nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, and their delivery systems in mysterious ways.

    He (the author) has applied past research in developing a coherent argument in defining in overcoming the contentions for “non-proliferation” and “counter-proliferation”.

    His purpose of the research was clearly stated in overcoming the definitional problems from the conflicting two concepts, which could probably contribute more significantly in a unified way. In fact, he smartly defined those two concepts in simplistic and useful manner to the audiences at page one and at paragraphs two and three, with detailed chronology and background information.

    He was succinct and articulate in a very compelling way, with the measured tone in the use of his highly polished diplomatic language.

    His vocabulary and sentence structure was neutral and appropriate at all times. It was balanced and objective. References were provided in limited footnotes. The reference section was disappointingly missing. However, the limited reference was recent and was important for his critical comments on the topic; and it was applied throughout to support and rebuttals extensively.

    He stated his purpose to define what means “non-proliferation” and “counter-proliferation” through his critical commentary, right from the start to the end of his article.

    He extensively and reasonably discussed the factors like State actors, and informal sector actors to terrorists and much more affecting his critical comments comprehensively. For example, from the military to other various stakeholders in the world of nuclear arms control cottage industry.

    He even provided the chronology of the diffusion about the term “counter-proliferation” starting from United States of America’s Department of Defence to the lexicons of the Canadian Government’s Department of Foreign Affairs and beyond. Suffice to say various publics understood the military term meant for dissuasion, disarmament, diplomacy, denial, defusing, deterrence, defenses and destruction. In other words, it meant pre-emption for WMD or weapons of mass destruction capabilities. One could reasonably measure the author being successful in his message delivery through his numerous imagery laden bright examples. Illustrations, tables and graphs were not necessary to complement the text.

    The major findings in the conclusion of the author of the article, which highlighted those supply side strategies. For example, the A.Q. Khan illegal black market network was not likely to halt illicit trade in nuclear materials technology in the future. In order to stopping nuclear proliferation an integrated strategy is required, and implementing it further required over all coordination in diplomacy channels globally, verification tools again globally, regionally and locally, law enforcement actions globally, and again in descending order regionally and then locally, financial incentives that has to be meaningful like given to North Korea but without harming national pride of it, intelligence collection amidst all member nations of United Nations, and in addition counter–proliferation initiative should be implemented alongside policies targeted in reduction of the demand side for nuclear weapons.

    In concluding remarks of this critical review, I have to positively validate the author about his analyses, arguments, findings and evidences being reasonably satisfactory, which was supported with logic, clarity and compelling force of persuasion. He has defined the terms what means non-proliferation and counter proliferation in simple but effective clarity to the audience. Finally, the author knew his intent of strategic fit in the topical discourse, where his significant knowledge contribution could be applicable by others in future ahead, and with agility, and smartness has suggested recommendation with his own strategies, and alternatives for future in reduction in the demand side for nuclear weapons, and by painting various scenarios to stimulate his vast potential and present audiences.

    (Nina Gregurev see Tuesday at 9:30 AM yesterday before Security Office Coffee Kiosk having cigges and coffee fit for a lunatuna!)

  24. Innsbruck is fought in excess of several moments throughout the hundreds
    of years relationship again to Roman instances.

  25. I am extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog.

    Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself?
    Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog
    like this one today.

  26. You made some good points there. I checked on the internet for more information about the issue
    and found most individuals will go along with your views on this
    site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s