Ashleigh Berdebes investigates the latest on Julian Assange as he faces extradition to Sweden on accusations of rape and sexual assault.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Image: Jamey Curt

On Wednesday 30 May, Julian Assange lost his final appeal as a UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of extraditing the Wikileaks founder to Sweden where he is accused of rape and sexual assault.

The press activity surrounding Julian Assange and Wikileaks has been ample, to say the least. So much so, that for many, the facts have become blurred and the timeline has become hazy.

It can be a grueling process to piece the news together as it breaks, even more so when it concerns ‘the most dangerous man in the world’. From affairs as diverse as the US’s new National Defense Authorization Act, Bradley Manning’s legal battle, political machinations in Sweden, and revelations from a U.S ‘shadow CIA’, a big picture is emerging. If anything, the leak of the confidential StratFor emails provided the colouring-in at the end of a protracted game of connect-the-dots.

541 days ago an electronic tag was fastened to the ankle of Julian Assange and ever since he has lived under house arrest in a UK manor home. Though no formal charges have at any point been laid against Assange he has been prohibited from leaving the Norfolk estate unless reporting to police or attending court. The house arrest was ordered by UK authorities pending their decision to allow Assange to be extradited to Sweden for questioning.

From the confines of the manor, Assange, as the editor in chief of WikiLeaks, has overseen the release of the Spy Files, the Global Intelligence Files, the Guantanamo Files, and, notoriously, the Cablegate Files – and in doing so has brought scathing criticism upon the US government, intelligence companies and the military.

The exhaustive legal case that has recently taken place in the UK Supreme Court has not been conducted with the intention of addressing the rape and misdemeanor allegations put forward by Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin, but has instead concerned a technical issue asking the question: is the European Arrest Warrant (EWA), which Stockholm’s Prosecutor Marianne Ny issued for Assange, valid?

Put simply, can the Swedish prosecutor be defined as a ‘judicial authority’? The answer, delivered yesterday, is yes.  Assange will now most certainly be extradited to Sweden for ‘questioning’ – not for prosecution, because, in reality, he has not been charged with any crime, anywhere.

Assange’s legal team may opt to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, but for now his lawyer, Dinah Rose, has requested that his extradition be delayed for two weeks so that she may argue a legal technicality raised during the hearing. However  many commentators have suggested that she has little chance of success.

The allegations Assange will be answering to are surrounded with suspicion. It was on August 20 in 2010 that Julian Assange was accused of ‘unfreedom’ (a misdemeanour crime under Swedish law) in relation to Anna Ardin and of the rape and sexual assault of Sofia Wilen.

‘Rape’, by Swedish definition, is not necessarily an act of violence, as its anecdotal interpretation suggests. Rather, it can be an act of coercion or ‘surprise’. Rape, in Assange’s case, is an instance of consensual sex where the use of a condom is in question.

In the case of his sexual relations with Wilen, she reported to police that although he wore a condom the first time he had refused to wear a condom the second time. The first complainant, Ardin, revealed to a newspaper after the police visit, “He is not violent, and I do not feel threatened by him.” When Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer for the two women, was asked to comment on Ardin’s seemingly disculpatory statement, he dismissed her revelation, saying the complainant “is not a jurist”.

For many observers, it seemed difficult to comprehend how the prosecution could continue with the case after Ardin’s statement – especially in light of the suspicious timeline of events. Ardin, a member of the Social Democrat Party organized the conference Assange spoke at, and Sofia Wilen attended.

Twitter posts and text messages between the women give a damning contradiction of crimes they allege Assange committed. On August 14 2010, the day following the alleged molestation, Ardin organized a party for Assange – during which she boasted on Twitter that she was with “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!” She later attempted to delete this post – as well as the Twitter post announcing the party after the story broke.

The second complainant, Sofia Wilen, had breakfast with Assange after the alleged ‘rape’ took place on August 16, and then paid for his train ticket home.

On August 18 Ardin and Wilen became aware of the fact that they had both slept with Assange in close succession and on August 20 both women filed a rape complaint against Assange. The story was broken by the Swedish tabloid Expressen at 5am the following day.

Ardin’s SMS history contains texts in which the two women organised a visit to the police station where they intended to ask how they could force Assange to take a test for sexually transmitted diseases – a method that can be used by the complainants to escape criminal charges in the event that a ‘rape’ report is found to be false. Phone records then revealed a conversation between Ardin and Wilen, discussing the possibility of leaking the rape story to the Swedish tabloid Expressen.

On August 21, Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, reviewed the complaints against Assange and closed the case immediately. Finne stated that the rape allegations were ‘groundless’.

However, Claes Borgstrom – celebrity lawyer and Social Democratic Party spokesperson on gender equality issues – successfully appealed to reopen the case against Assange, this time with Marianne Ny, a Social Democrat member, as prosecutor. Borgstrom is now the legal representative for the two women and the Social Democratic Party has been campaigning for the legal definition of rape to be widened.

There have been numerous irregularities of conduct throughout the case. The accusation of rape was immediately and unlawfully leaked to the Swedish media by Stockholm’s prosecutor-on-duty, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, and Swedish tabloid Expressen published the story that night. Hours later there were 5 million online references to ‘Assange+rape’ and in June 2011, a Google search of ‘WikiLeaks+rape’ reached 11 million hits.

Former Swedish judge, Brita Sundberg-Weitman has objected to the way the case has been handled, exposing Marianne Ny’s vested interest in the case: “It is a fact that people like Marianne Ny and Claes Borgstrom have worked in cooperation on different issues in efforts to produce our new, more stringent sexual offence laws.”

Ny herself is chief of a prosecution “development center” specialising in sexual offences. Importantly, Sundberg-Weitman points out the EAW cannot be used purely for the purpose of ‘questioning’, which Ny claimed is her intention. It is designed for the purpose of prosecution only. Nonetheless, because the EAW has been issued, the evidence underlying the rape case in Sweden does not take priority and cannot be considered in the proceedings.

So why didn’t the prosecutor question Assange to start off with?

Assange made himself available to answer to allegations for five weeks before requesting – and being granted – permission to leave Sweden. He even offered himself for interview on September 15 in 2010. Questioning was still possible when he left, as Skype and a telephone call are considered valid means of interrogation.

What has been achieved by this exhaustive (and expensive) case, and by Julian Assange’s house arrest? And what is Sweden’s agenda in bringing Assange directly into the country?

For starters, the US has apparently had a secret indictment against Assange for over a year now. Earlier this year, StratFor – a global intelligence company, or a sort of ‘shadow CIA’ – recently faced the hacking of millions of their confidential emails at the hands of hacker group Anonymous. StratFor has. among its clients, the Unites States Government, Apple, and the U.S Airforce. One of the more notable communications comes from StratFor’s vice-president Fred Burton, which reads: “Not for Pub — We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect.”

Among other things, the StratFor emails outline the methods used to undermine Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Tactics such as “Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure”, implicate StratFor in the creation of the financial blockade (activated by MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and more) currently starving WikiLeaks of 95% of its usual income.

WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Assange considers it as a whistleblower protection intermediary.

In the same email, Burton says: “The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track aQ [Al Qaeda].” The emails pen Assange as a ‘peacenik’ and a ‘terrorist’. According to Burton: “Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever.”

It is important to note that WikiLeaks broke no laws by releasing US State Department cables in 2011. WikiLeaks uses drop-box technology to obtain documents from its sources, and as such is technologically unable to identify their sources – and, although the documents may have been sent in breach of U.S law, the First Amendment protects the publication of those documents and the publisher.

But Stratfor’s Vice-President of Public Policy, Bart Mongoven, says Assange should face “whatever trumped up charge is available to get this guy and his servers off the streets.” And of Private Bradley Manning, who is currently facing trial for supposedly leaking thousands of embarrassing U.S State Department cables, Mongoven says: “I’d feed that shithead soldier to the first pack of wild dogs I could find.”

The prospect of Assange being extradited to the U.S is alarming. Strangely, on New Years Eve 2011, Barack Obama quite rapidly signed a significant act – the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – into United States law.

Justin Amash – a current Member of Congress, whose committee assignments include both Homeland Security and Military and Veterans Affairs – has been openly critical of the NDAA in its current form. He points out that the NDAA is a game changer for US security in that it empowers the President to detain anyone who he feels “substantially supported” groups that he suspects are “associated forces” of terrorists.

So, anyone seen to have “supported” al-Qaeda or the Taliban or anyone “engaged in hostilities” against the United States or even its “coalition partners” can be indefinitely detained, without charge, at the President’s discretion.

The bill does not attempt to define any of its significant terms, but one concern is that Assange may be a victim of the NDAA and its broad terminology. Through his role in WikiLeaks, and his supposed conspiring with Bradley Manning in the release of sensitive American military documents – such as the “Collateral Murder” video, the Afghan war documents, and the Iraq War documents – the NDAA could in fact define Assange as a terrorist; a term that many American politicians have already used to describe him.

Crucially, at Manning’s hearing on March 15, the ‘enemy’ who Manning is alleged to have aided was defined, finally, as Al-Qaeda.

A member of Assange’s legal team, Jennifer Robinson, had voiced fears of a US indictment long before the StratFor messages were leaked. She said in mid-February: “Australians need only look at the way Bradley Manning is being treated in a US prison in order to understand what may happen to Julian if he ends up in the US.”

According to Marines involved, Bradley Manning, who has been kept under solitary maximum custody since July 2010, was kept naked over two nights in a solitary cell for fear he would try to hang himself with his underwear. This was considered ‘suicide watch’ – something that medical staff advised against.

Private Manning, yet to be found guilty of the charges – has been in custody since May 2010. Juan Mendez, the UN special rapporteur on torture, finished a 14-month investigation on the conditions Manning is being kept under, and has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The primary evidence that is being used to incriminate Manning is an online conversation with hacker Adrian Lamo, who turned this evidence, and consequently Manning, in to the FBI.

At Bradley Manning’s committal hearing just prior to Christmas, his defense lawyer Mr. Coombs opened by accusing the investigating officer of trying to pressure Manning into criminally implicating Julian Assange. Since the investigating officer is an employee of the Department of Justice, which has an ongoing criminal investigation into Julian Assange – the investigating officer’s employer had an interest in driving Bradley Manning to make a plea bargain which would incriminate Assange.

Essentially, Manning’s defense lawyer says Bradley is being mistreated and overcharged (that is, 150 years plus life in prison) for reasons of expediency. When Fred Burton from StratFor wrote in June 2010:“We COULD have a sealed indictment and lock him up. Depends upon how far along the military case is”, Burton further exposed the connection between Manning and Assange’s respective legal battles.

So, what is the danger now that Assange will be extradited to Sweden? They can ask their questions, but if the case is so flimsy, won’t it just fall apart?

If Assange were taken to Sweden, he would be isolated indefinitely, kept in incommunicado detention, and thereafter a trial would take place in private, where political parties must appoint untrained jurors. Theoretically, Sweden shouldn’t be able to hand Assange over to the United States.

Sweden, being a signatory of the European Arrest Warrant, would ordinarily have to get the UK to permit any onward extraditing of a detainee. However, the U.S has a separate bilateral treaty with Sweden. This treaty grants the temporary surrender of a prisoner – where Assange may be handed to the U.S on a ‘loan’ basis.

What will happen if Assange is ‘borrowed’ by the U.S?

Since December 2010, a grand jury in Virginia has met to deliberate over charges that can be brought against Assange and those associated with WikiLeaks. Potentially, the State Department could have Assange prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, for releasing information detrimental to foreign relations.

The Espionage Act says it is a crime for anyone with unauthorized possession of information on US national defense to communicate it to others, or to refuse to give it back once they’re aware it could cause damage to the US. Interestingly, Assange received a letter from the US State Department prior to the publication of the 250, 000 Cablegate documents warning him that he was jeopardizing national security – so the Espionage Act could definitely apply.

Are these fears of extradition from Sweden to the US founded? The UK and Sweden have both refused to guarantee Assange security from US extradition. Prosecutor Marianne Ny initially said that US extradition was ‘out of the question’ after issuing the Interpol Red Notice and EAW for Assange – but this statement was revised thereafter.

The prospect of Sweden consenting to ‘loan’ Julian Assange to the US is best understood in light of Sweden’s close political ties with the US. Not long ago, for instance, Sweden violated international treaties and surrendered two refugees to the CIA at the request of the US, and, under Hosni Mubarak’s regime, the refugees were then tortured.

Sweden hasn’t refused an extradition request from the US since the year 2000. Foreign nationals have fewer rights than civilians in both Sweden and in the US – particularly since 9/11 – so extradition to either country is an alarming prospect for Assange.

To say the least, Wednesday’s verdict has left Assange’s fate hanging in the balance now more than ever before.

Sydney saw flash mobs take a political turn this weekend when nearly 90 people staged confronting scenes in Darling Harbour to raise awareness of the Syria conflict. Miran Hosny reports.

Silence is Betrayal, a movement of young people with a vision of raising awareness for justice in the world, host a Flash Mob for Syria in Sydney's Darling Harbour over the weekend. Source: Nadia Abdel-Fatah.

Activists dressed in army fatigues aimed fake guns at women and children participants huddled in defenceless positions, re-enacting what organisers say is real life brutality that takes place under Syrian president Bashar Assad’s regime.

The flash mob held at 1PM on Saturday ended with the release of a banner from the Western Distributor Highway overlooking the crowd stating, “Silence is Betrayal”.

Organiser Mohsen Saleh, 22, said the inspiration for this unorthodox form of protest came from a Youtube video of a similar flash mob in Canada.

“This is much more powerful in my opinion. Silence. Everyone stops and stares,” said Saleh.

Onlooker Fiona Fonti, 30, agreed.

“This is quite striking. With protests, you don’t really know what’s going on, it’s just people cheering and chanting but this is really different.”

Fonti said she was only vaguely aware of the situation in Syria before the flash mob. Other onlookers like Marinke Kat, 26, said they were not aware of the situation at all.

“I saw ‘Bashar’ and was like which country is he from, then I saw ‘Syria’ [on the signs],” she said.

“It draws attention really quickly, because you think ‘Oh what’s going on there?’ and then you stop to take a look. “

With a United Nations estimate of over 9000 dead in Syria since the nationwide uprising began early last year, attention to the cause is exactly what the organisers want.

“People who may have not known what’s happening in Syria will find out, and anyone who is against the murder of children or the murder of innocent people will be shocked to find this information,” said Asme Fahmi, 31, a flash mob participant.

Source: Nadia Abdel-Fatah.

Fahmi said her travels to Syria pushed her to join in.

“I saw how people have been mistreated by this dictatorship. You’re not allowed to speak about the government, you’re not allowed to dissent in any way,” she said.

“The leadership is built upon abuse and torture and fear. It’s just no way for anyone to live.”

The organisers hope that by raising awareness, more people will add their voices in the call against President Assad.

“What we’re trying to say is if you stay silent, you’re taking the side of the oppressor,” Saleh said. “You are not neutral.”

Originally published in New Matilda

Silence is Betrayal Flash Mob for Syria Youtube Video

Lillian Radulova investigates the impact of red meat on Australian health, diet, industry and the environment.

A US study released by Harvard University in April this year, found that people who consume more processed red meat have a 20 per cent higher chance of dying earlier. Image: Generation Next

Nobody adores animals more than Professor Mike Archer does!

According to the University of New South Wales (UNSW) scientist from the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental sciences, animals play a pivotal role in society.

Photographs of Australian marsupials hang from the walls of his home, and two cages alive with Australian native birds, squawk along to his fond personal stories of housing swamp wallabies and kangaroos, whose personalities he compares to puppies.

But people have to eat, and eat meat they will; it is what they have naturally been doing for over eight million years.

“The only time any ancestor of ours ever stepped into the herbivorous vegan zone was Paranthropus boisei who has got to be one of the ugliest humans that ever evolved on the planet,”
Archer says.

“It had a flat head, these gigantic cheeks, tiny beady eyes; this is a horror out of the worst nightmare you can imagine,” he describes.

“It was what happens to humans if they try out to be herbivores. And it’s extinct. It didn’t go anywhere. Our line; the omnivores, are the ones that have continually survived and done well.”

But following our natural instincts or our taste buds is not always the right choice.

It is proving increasingly difficult to ignore the ongoing flow of conflicting information claiming meat is necessary for wellbeing, and yet contributes to bad health.

Most recently, a US study released by Harvard University in April this year, found that people who consume more processed red meat have a 20 per cent higher chance of dying earlier.

The study, completed over 20 years and focusing on over 120,000 people, summarised that red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality.

But using U.S. literature to look at Australia is the equivalent of  “comparing apples and oranges” according to professor Felice Jacka from Deakin University in Victoria.

Australian livestock is largely grass fed and thus lean, while U.S. raised meat has a “far less healthy fatty acid profile” and more saturated fat due to being “almost exclusively grown on feed lots,” as Jacka explains.

According to her study, which looked at the overall quality of female diets through a wide sample of women in the Geelong area, has added to the conflicting mass of literature on meat consumption by linking its effects to mental health.

The study, released in March, found women who had less than the recommended intake of red meat every week were at least twice as likely to have a depressive or anxiety disorder.

“We looked at other forms of protein intake to see whether this was to do with protein and not to do with red meat specifically,” says Jacka.

“We looked at white meats like chicken and pork and we looked at vegetable protein…It was only red meat that was clearly and consistently associated with these mental health problems.”

Consumer options seem slim from this summary of literature; dying young with health complications versus being depressed throughout a very long life.

But balanced health can be achieved with balanced plates, according to accredited practicing dietician Lisa Renn, who recommends following the National Health and Medical Research Council’s dietary guidelines.

They recommend eating lean red meat three to four times a week with serves between 100-150 grams, the size of a deck of cards or the palm of your hand.

Red meat is healthy because its essential nutrients like iron and zinc are easily available for absorption.

According to Renn, the problem lies in the fact that “we’re having twice as much protein or red meat then we actually need each day.”

Having this higher level of protein consumption over a longer period of time is when health problems occur.

“Levels of red meat consumption has been linked with colorectal cancer and there’s also suggested evidence of other cancers,” Renn says.

“We know that 86 per cent of people did not achieve the five serves of vegetables per day that we’re hoping to get in. So if we’re having too much meat then potentially we’re not getting enough vegetables.”

But of the red meat we do eat, Archer believes there is more than just the health of people to think of. The environment and Australia’s biodiversity are both significantly effected by livestock consumption patterns.

The UN’s 2006 report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, revealed the livestock industry is responsible for 18 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, amounting to more than transport.

Furthermore, livestock production takes up 30 per cent of the world’s lands surface, which was formerly wildlife habitat.

But Queensland cattle farmer, Stuart Barrett, says there is a misconception around livestock production and environmental damage in Australia.

One of his strategies involves planting leucaena, a native taproot which retrieves moisture from lower in the ground and fixes nitrogen in the soil for other grass to feed off, while providing high protein for grazing cattle.

“I’ve actually seen real kilogram figures, dollar figures improving my business, and I’ve also seen environmental improvement in areas that were struggling,” Barrett reveals.

Barrett is one of many farmers taking part in the Target 100 campaign, launched in March by six Australian meat industry bodies including Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA).

The campaign’s aim is to achieve sustainable cattle and sheep farming by 2020 through its 100 proposed initiatives involving research and promotion of sustainable ideas.

“[Target 100] is a social networking medium, I guess, where people can actually come and see the truth about what’s happening there,” Barret says.

“I think the best way to get that information is to go straight to the horses’ mouth, so to speak, and make a connection with a real farmer.”

Despite the campaign deserving a “pat on the back”, Archer believes it’s not enough.

Industries should be looking at what has worked previously for our ecosystems in terms of meat production, and that involves looking back to the methods of Indigenous Australians.

“Wildlife is increasingly not safe in the wild. It’s increasingly important to find ways to get people to value the wildlife. And that often means a dollar value,”
Archer says.

His solution is to wild harvest one of our most undervalued resources; kangaroos.

Kangaroos are a good source of healthy lean meat with minimal impact on the environment. Image: Darren Stones

Although valued as a healthy lean meat, he believes the potential to depend increasingly on kangaroos needs to be extended and valued for its environmental potential; kangaroos do not produce excess methane, do not damage the soil with hoofs and do not tear out the roots of the plants they eat.

The outlandish suggestion of farming more kangaroos makes CSIRO’s deputy chief of business development, Greg Harper, openly laugh.

With less meat on them and the difficulty in herding them, Harper doesn’t see it as a valid solution.

“That’s a big jump,” Harper says.

“We’ve been developing the methods we use to domesticate and husband animals for at least 10,000 years, so a lot of these things are well developed and well thought through.”

Harper, also a non-executive director of MLA, does believe kangaroos can improve the livestock industry, but in an unexpected way.

The Reducing Emissions from Livestock Research Project (RELRP) is researching how microbes in kangaroos allow them to digest grass without releasing excess methane, a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

This could lead to genetically selected or altered cattle, which release less of the gas.

Harper’s solution is for the meat ‘industry to maximize efficiency’, and continue focusing on specifically selected feed which quickens livestock’s rate of growth.

But ‘efficiency’ comes with a cost which Dana Campbell, CEO of Voiceless, says comes in the form of shortcuts.

Trimming chickens beaks and castrating pigs without pain relief are just a few ‘shortcuts’ taken by factory farms, which Voiceless campaigns against.

For Campbell, there’s a clear choice, and it’s not economics, but opting to pay more for meat that guarantees ethical production, or reducing consumption altogether.

“The way we treat our animals is an indication of the way we treat each other,” Campbell says.

“It’ll be better for [consumers] health and better for the planet.”

State Government funding snubs suburban grounds making the NRL consider a switch to bigger stadiums, as Tony Salerno reports.

Brookvale Oval, home of the Manly Sea Eagles NRL club, one of the remaining suburban grounds feeling the pressure from the bigger stadiums. Image: Paul Glover

A new report commissioned by Graham Annesley (Minister for Sport) indicates that there will no longer be state funding for the upkeep and maintenance of suburban grounds.

The lack of funding has forced the NRL to consider moving games from suburban grounds to the bigger stadiums, namely ANZ and Allianz Stadiums.

The switch to the two larger stadiums would attract greater crowds through an upgrade in stadium facilities, more parking available and of course more seats for spectators.

“They want to go to a stadium that is secure, where they have a seat, good toilet facilities, great public transport – that’s how we get people coming to our games,” South Sydney CEO Shane Richardson told the Daily Telegraph.

The fact stands that: GREATER ATTENDANCE MEANS MORE MONEY FOR THE NRL.

So, isn’t the switch a simple solution?

A standard adult ticket at ANZ stadium is $25. In comparison, a standard adult ticket at a suburban ground, for example Brookvale Oval, also costs $25.

On face value the price is the same, but add on traffic, public transport and petrol prices; a suburban supporter would be paying a much higher price.

Last year, the Manly Sea Eagles were told by the NRL to move their Week 1 Finals game from Brookvale Oval to Allianz Stadium (formerly the Sydney Football Stadium) to attract a bigger crowd. The NRL’s plan backfired, as the crowd recorded was a dismal 13, 972.

It then became apparent that more fans would have attended had the game remained at Brookvale Oval. The the clear message from the Manly fans was they would not be willing to travel.

“I think if they were to abandon Brookie (Brookvale Oval) it would be a disgrace; think of all the legends that played at this ground and we’d be throwing it away,” Manly Sea Eagles supporter Anthony Fedale said.

“The travel is a big hassle because it is expensive, which is why no one turned up last year,” he said.

The Canterbury Bulldogs have been playing their home games at ANZ stadium since 1999, and the club has committed to continue to play their home games their until at least 2020.

The South Sydney Rabbitohs also call ANZ stadium ‘home’. The West Tigers move four home games a year to Allianz stadium, while the Parramatta Eels move two ‘home’ games to ANZ stadium when facing the Bulldogs and Rabbitohs.

If this trend continues, the future seems bleak for grounds like Brookvale Oval, Campbelltown Stadium, Leichhardt Oval, WIN Jubilee Oval, Parramatta Stadium and Toyota Park. They could follow the direction of the Redfern Oval and Belmore Sports ground, which were abandoned by the Bulldogs and Rabbitohs for the bigger stadiums.

“It’s sad that this heritage is gone, but it is in the best interest of the NRL, at the end of the day it’s a business. I’m sure if they want to support their club, they will be willing to travel,” said Bulldogs fan Joseph Kahawati.

But, what would the game really be losing if they were to disregard suburban grounds?

The Rivalries. The Fortresses. The Tribes. The Heritage.

“It’s what the game is all about. I go down to Campbelltown (Stadium) with my son every time they (Wests Tigers) play there and the atmosphere is just unbelievable. If the game moved to the bigger stadiums permanently that feeling will be lost forever,” Tigers tragic Peter Leonello said.

The Sport Minister’s withdrawal of funds will also have an affect on the Junior Rugby League system.

According to Evan Walsh, President of Balmain PCYC Rugby League Club, this could financially impact local clubs.

“The only effect this will have on us is via a possible increase in field hiring costs. PCYC is a non-profit group, so every dollar counts,” Walsh said.

President of St. George Junior Rugby League Chris Books believes that St George Junior rugby league has not felt the backlash of the fund withdrawal.

“The only potential (effect) may be in applications for the many and varied grants for ground upgrades and development but these are a bit of a lottery at the best of times,” he said.

According to Leichhardt council member Vince Cusumano, the fund withdrawal will considerably restrict both clubs and local councils.

“There is no doubt that if funding is taken away, then the ability of West Tigers and council, should the ground come back to us, to carry out improvements to the ground will be diminished,” he said.

This increase in costs to hire grounds including upgrades and improvements will discourage the NRL to host games at the suburban grounds.

With the Northern Territory becoming the second state after South Australia to introduce a container deposit scheme, the debate over Australia’s container recycling policy is heating up. However environment groups and the beverage industry do not see eye-to-eye on the issue, as Will Mumford reports.

The Northern Territory is the second state after South Australia to introduce a container deposit scheme. Image: James Lauritz/ Getty Images

WILL MUMFORD (WM): Most Australians are familiar with the weekly sound of a rubbish truck pulling up outside their house and the bottles and cans of the week’s recycling being emptied into the growling vehicle.

However with a beverage container deposit scheme, or CDS, being implemented in the Northern Territory this year, to go along with the one in South Australia, there are increasing calls for a national CDS to replace the kerbside collection model most of us are familiar with.

Jeff Angel, Managing Director of The Boomerang Alliance, who represent 17 of Australia’s leading environment groups, believes that now is the time to legislate nationally on a scheme.

JEFF ANGEL (JA): Why should South Australia only have the best container recycling system in the world when most of the containers are consumed on the East and they have very serious litter problems and very little high value recycling of containers.

WM: Dr Damien Giurco from the Institute for Sustainable Futures says that legislating state-by-state could be the platform for a national scheme.

DAMIEN GIURCO (DG): I think pragmatically, it will be a case where building one state at a time could be the platform for something national. It’s something we should look seriously at pursuing, I think any bottlenecks we should be able to iron out.

WM: However the peak representative body of the beverage industry, the Australian Beverage Council, are opposed to container deposit legislation. CEO of the Council, Geoff Parker, says that the Environment Ministers’ recent Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) on packaging waste options, indicates that a deposit system will be costly and ineffective.

GEOFF PARKER (GP): It’s just a matter of one policy being better than another. Under the Packaging Impacts Consultation RIS [Regulatory Impact Statement], there was a whole range of options that were independently analysed by PricewaterhouseCoopers and both of the container deposit programs that were put up underneath that RIS costed around about $2.5 billion. The National Bin Network was far cheaper than that and it would look at a whole range of different recyclable materials over and above just beverage containers which is obviously the focus of a container deposit scheme.

Listen to the full story below:

WM: Mr Angel says that the position of the beverage industry and particularly Coca-Cola Amatil, who are represented by the Australian Beverage Council, is based on false premises.

JA: They firstly say that the 10-cent deposit on the retail price of a beverage makes them less competitive against other discretionary purchases. There is no evidence that their sales are harmed when a container deposit system comes in, but they’ve convinced themselves that some consumers will not buy a Coke, they’ll buy an ice-cream.

WM: Whilst Dr Giurco believes that a CDS is the most efficient container recycling method, he says that stakeholders should evaluate a national CDS by its environmental effectiveness rather than its potential economic burden.

DG: The economic rules we dream up we are in control of and we need to make sure they are a means to an end that we would want and so I think putting the rules of economics as the out of boundary which can’t be violated is putting things back to front.

WM: One issue highlighted in the recent Northern Territory scheme, is the inability of some collection depots to pass the containers back onto the beverage companies once they have been received from the consumer. This has lead to several depots having to close down across the state, and criticism of the policy’s efficacy in practice. However the Manager of M.T. Bins Michael Knight, who operates a collection depot in Katherine, has a simpler explanation.

Why have some depots struggled to sell the containers back to the beverage companies?

MICHAEL KNIGHT: Well that simply was because they didn’t have contracts with the coordinators. And that’s exactly what’s happened to the two blokes in Darwin, both of them have no contracts with coordinators and we told them that when they first started. They’ve gone gung-ho into it, carrying on a troop making lots of noise but everything else is going fine, no one else is having any problems whatsoever.

WM: With submissions to the government’s Regulatory Impact Statement having closed at the end of March, both sides have made sure that their voices were heard by policymakers.

Has the Australian Beverage Council consulted with government regarding the issue?

GP: We’ve also made a submission to that RIS [Regulatory Impact Statement] process, we know that they will be considering that in the near future. Again, if there’s a more effective, cheaper option out there, it’d make sense to go with that rather than something that’s going to cost taxpayers and companies and consumers and local governments a whole lot of money.

WM: But Mr Angel is confident that a national deposit scheme may finally be gaining some traction.

JA: We’re closer than we’ve ever been. There have been at least three or four attempts in the last 25 years to get a container deposit system in place. We have to spend the next three months working very hard on every state, on every environment minister, on every premier. Cause it takes a lot of work to get to this decision point.

Two completely different films led this years Oscar race for the Best Motion Picture, but silence proved golden as Sam Murphy reports.

'The Artist' starring Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo wins the Oscar for the Best Motion Picture - Comedy Or Musical. Image: abcnews

Silence is officially Golden! The Artist wins one of the show’s top awards by collecting the gong for Best Motion Picture – Comedy Or Musical.

On one end of the spectrum is Hugo, a 3D, high budget Scorsese film. On the other The Artist, a silent, black and white French film. Both films transported viewers back to the origins of film through their nostalgia inducing stories and imagery.

Visually, they were starkly different. Audiences of ‘Hugo’ sat with 3D glasses while those of ‘The Artist’ watched a grainy, black and white film. Hugo was accompanied by surround sound. The Artist simply relied on a minimal soundtrack with no dialogue. Viewers flocked to the former with few rushing to the latter.

Against all odds The Artist took out best film at the 84th Academy Awards, becoming the the first silent film to do so since ‘Wings’ in 1927. While garnering rave reviews from critics, it begged the question, was it simply a one-off or the beginning of a back to basics trend in the film industry?

Daivd Dale, film critic and author, believes it is definitely a one-off.

“There may be one or two other silent films made as a result of ‘The Artist’ but it seems to be a one off,” Dale said.

The Artist is the brainchild of French director Michel Hazanavicius. The success of the film has transcended beyond its homelan, garnering stellar reviews from prominent global print media such as the New York Times and the UK Guardian.

However, Dale said it’s a “case of nostalgia for the film-maker rather than the viewer.” He said despite its critical praise it isn’t “translating into bums-on-seats.”

“The movie is cute but doesn’t have much substance…watching it for the second time may not have the effect as it did the first.”

At the box office, The Artist has made a worldwide total of $114,249,836. Hugo managed a total of $165,482,000 although it’s still being shown in most major cinemas worldwide. In comparison, last years Best Motion Picture ‘The Kings Speech’ earned a total of $414,211,100, almost quadruple what The Artist has earned.

The Artist was released to the Western World under different circumstances to the aforementioned. As a silent, black and white film with a relatively unknown French cast it had to rely on merit alone to draw people to the cinemas and has relied largely on its critical success.

Its critics have marveled in the reliance on genuine acting through facial expression and its subtle visual effects rather than its recreation of the past. This suggests that nostalgia is not the only technique charming viewers.

New York Times critic A.O. Scott praised the film for its subtle homage of the past rather than it being a complete recreation. He described it as being “like a reconstituted classic roadster with a GPS device and a hybrid engine.”

It’s clear that the intention of director Michel Hazanavicius was to evoke a certain nostalgia for ‘old’ Hollywood.

Speaking of the film in press rounds, the stated that it is “a very old Hollywood cliche,” going on to cite that as “one of the charms of the movie.”

When speaking of the film Hazanavicius uses the word “cliche” several times. These obvious homages seem to help an audience unaware of silent film to resonate with some of the most popular images from classic Hollywood.

Critics have picked up on musical and visual similarities from films like Citizen Kane, Singin In The Rain and A Star Is Born. Hazanavicius suggested this is what makes the film familiar to viewers.

Whether it be nostalgia generating or ‘simple’ to audiences, The Artist is one of the most unusual Academy winners in recent years. Its critical triumphs and box office downfalls reveal a film pushing the boundaries oddly by returning to those set nearly a century ago.

As much as the film is a homage to the past, it also sets a precedent for the future.

Sydney’s Art Month for 2012 is a shining success, further establishing Sydney’s growing reputation as an arts city. Anita Senaratna reports.

Art Equity, just one of the many galleries on display as part of Art Month in Sydney, combines art and financial expertise. Image: artmonthsydney

Every year, the bright geometric posters adorning Sydney billboards and bus stops signal the beginning of Art Month, a festival that celebrates visual art in all its forms.

This year’s festival consisted of over 300 artists and 200 events spread out across Sydney in the month of March. Held in over 100 different galleries, the festival combined commercial galleries and galleries in the inner city with smaller Artist-Run Initiatives (ARIs) and venues in Blacktown, Parramatta, Casula and Gymea.

James Dorahy, former 2011 Art Month board member and current operator of the James Dorahy Project Space in Potts Point, said that Art Month festival served a broader purpose than just showcasing art.

“[The main goals were to] to celebrate the diversity of contemporary art in Sydney and to create a festival which opens up the idea of new audiences to galleries,” Dorahy said.

Besides the exhibitions, this year’s events included: walks, conversations with notable people in the Sydney art world, art workshops for children and adults, dinners, drinks and art bars that allowed visitors to socialise after viewing exhibitions.

Jo Holder is the director of The Cross Art Projects in Kings Cross, one of the 100 Sydney galleries that participated in Art Month 2012.

‘The art scene is certainly more fragmented than it used to be. I think that’s led to a lack of cohesion in the art world in Sydney,” Holder said.

Holder identified that one advantage of this year’s Art Month was its structure – the way it simultaneously united all the different galleries spread out across Sydney and divided them up into more accessible “precincts.”

“Melbourne’s still got everybody going to everyone else’s openings, so it’s still got a kind of group dynamic…whereas Sydney tends to be more little groups associated with certain spaces or certain geographic areas,” she said.

Holder said the guided walks and precinct parties allowed visitors to see numerous galleries in the one area at the same time, providing Sydney’s art world some much-needed “cohesion.”

“In that way I think it’s a good idea to map it all out and just give people a sense of what’s in an area, you can take an area and go around it and that’s kind of one day… and it can be fun and social,” she said.

However, Holder did express doubts about events such as art bars-bars set up specifically for Art Month visitors to drink, dance and discuss exhibitions – in relation to the festival’s goals.

“I don’t think art needs art bars,’” said Holder.

“It’s good to have it but not as an end unto itself, art is not an accessory to drinking…why make it decor for some other agenda?”

Holder admitted that although she did tend to have more of a “purist” approach to events, she felt like this year’s Art Month had conveyed its message a lot better than it had in previous years.

“I think this year they’ve pulled it back a bit, it’s not to where a purist like me would like it which is sort of no logos, just do the art…more unmediated… so it’s much more about the artist and the spaces rather than a kind of intermediary layer of people promoting it,” Holder said.

Sebastian Goldspink, the producer of this year’s Art Month, said that Sydney has just as much to offer in terms of art as cities such as Melbourne with more of a reputation for being arts-focused.

‘The whole Melbourne/Sydney debate is more and more kind of diminishing. It used to be said that Melbourne was the more cultural centre of Australia but there’s amazing stuff happening in Sydney and Art Month is definitely a celebration of visual arts in Sydney,” Goldspink said.

On the subject of art bars, Goldspink said that the idea behind them was more to do with extended opening hours for galleries then having people meet up at the bar and discuss what they had seen.

“It’s based on the German kaffeeklatsch [literally ‘coffee and chat’] kind of idea, of going to the theatre then meeting up afterwards, saying “Hey, did you see this? Did you like this?” “Oh, it’s great,” he explained.

Goldspink said that responses to this year’s festival had been extremely positive, and that contemporary art, both in Sydney and on a global scale, was continuing to grow and change.

“It’s always happening. There’s definitely no decline in contemporary art, and it’s always rapidly evolving…and we never know exactly where it’s at because it’s only in the benefit of hindsight, it’s so mercurial and you can’t really put your finger on it.”

A steady decisive shift towards electronic books, or eBooks, is shaking up the book industry. Daisy Souza reports.

The Apple iPad e-book reader is rapidly growing as a popular choice to book reading. Image: The Message, Tick Content.

Almost 100 Angus & Robertson and Borders book stores closed last year in Australia, forcing Australia’s largest booksellers to turn to electronic books to survive in a dynamic industry.

Publishing house, Pan Macmillan however, wasn’t going to be deterred.

Pan Macmillan sensed the gradual shift and launched Australia’s first digital only imprint, Momentum Books, in February of this year. Momentum Books offers 22 titles that are only available as digital books.

Joel Naoum, one of Momentum’s publishers, said the industry is experiencing radical change.

“The whole book industry is under strategic review and the book industry in Australia isn’t doing all that well,” Naoum said.

Although eBooks only make up about five-percent of total market sales in Australia, their popularity is growing rapidly. In the US alone, eBooks generated about $87 million dollars (AUD) in revenue, tripling the number of sales from the previous year.

Hard copy books can cost a lot more to publish due to printing and distribution costs. In comparison, digital books are what children’s writer Andy Griffiths describes as a “low-cost, low-risk way of publishing.”

The transition to an eBook “just made total sense” when Griffiths began his website ‘Andy from A to Y’ in an attempt to answer his fans questions. It quickly became too big to contain and the digital book Andypedia was born.

Andypedia has hyperlink capability, allowing for related story titles, character names and themes to be linked to one another. This approach is more interactive and often appeals to younger children.

“It just gives a different reading experience,” Griffiths said.

“People definitely seem to be embracing eBooks at a rapid rate.”

The accessibility of eBooks is an undeniable advantage. No longer do readers have to trawl through bookstore after bookstore in the hope of finding a particular book amongst hundreds of others. With eBooks, readers have thousands of options at their fingertips and are able to find exactly what they want, with just one click.

Griffiths pointed out how valuable this is for Australians living in more remote areas.

The lowered risk of digital publishing meant that publishers and authors had the opportunity to produce and publish works they would usually write off.

“It’s certainly got me thinking about books…it lets me do off-the-wall things I wouldn’t have thought of doing before,” Griffiths said.

This is what Naoum described as the “philosophical” aspect of digital publishing.

“There is a sense in Australian publishing that most books that are successful are big top 40 or ‘blockbuster’ books,” said Naoum.

The reduced cost of publishing eBooks means publishers can be more lenient in the projects they take on and experiment with new authors. As Naoum articulates: “we can take risks without it being risky”.

In order to remain relevant to readers, booksellers must try and respond to the demand for eBooks. Jon Page, of Pages and Pages Booksellers in Mosman said it’s important that bookshops offer eBooks.

“An eBook is another format just like a hardback, paperback or audio. Readers do not read one format exclusively they will read a mix and bookshops need to offer the complete range of formats,” said Page.

Annie Nelson, a TAFE educator, described how beneficial eBooks are for students and a mix of professionals.

“[It’s] very convenient for a programmer to have a language book open on one side of the computer screen while writing code on the other,” she said.

“A textbook I use costs over $160 to buy as hard copy at the Co-op bookstore in Sydney. The (slightly shorter) eBook version is about $30…I suggest to my financially challenged students to just buy the eBook version.”

Of the 22 titles Momentum Books offers, most are under five-dollars, the most expensive retailing nine-dollars.

There is one point, however, that publishers, authors, readers and booksellers can agree on; that there is always going to be a place for print books in the realm of the written word.

Page certainly thinks so. “I think the printed book is still the optimal format for reading and especially if you are a book collector like me.”

Additionally, Nelson believes some books aren’t suitable as an eBook.

“I think an eBook of Matisse’s paintings, for example, just wouldn’t sell as well as a hard copy one. People want to see the painting printed out,” Nelson said.

Naoum agrees that while the eBook is perfect for ‘disposable reading’, one could never give an eBook as a gift.Even as the popularity of eBooks grow extensively, it will become more difficult to admire a row of collectible cloth-bound Kindles on a bookshelf.

Jonas Løvschall-Wedel chats to five-time Walkley Award winner Monica Attard about her journalism beginnings, personal connection to Russia and the role of The Global Mail.

Monica Attard spent four years in Moscow as the ABC correspondent, now she's the managing editor of The Global Mail. Image: Ella Rubeli

The clock is just turning to 9am. Monica Attard is sitting behind her computer in her modern but spartanly decorated office. It’s still quiet, but in just an hour or so the building, opposite the botanical garden in Sydney’s CBD, will be buzzing with stories ticking in from all over the world.

After 28 years at ABC in a variety of different roles, ranging from foreign correspondent in Russia to hosting the Sunday Profile and Media Watch, Attard left the world of broadcasting to become managing editor of Australia’s new cosmopolitan website The Global Mail.

During her illustrious career, Attard has experienced more than most journalists could ever hope for. She has covered the collapse of a superpower and won several Walkley Awards; including the golden one. She has been Australia’s watchdog barking from Media Watch and found a home in an organisation that shares the same journalistic values that she holds so dear.

That being said, the climb to the top has not always been a light mambo for Attard. Before she could bow before the Walkley Committee and hold some of the most attractive positions in Australian journalism, she had to work crazy hours and endure working in a sexist environment; where women got the coffee and men handled the scoops.

At the age of 53 years old, Attard reflects about how she grew up in Sydney as a budding journalist. She first went into journalism in 1977 doing a cadetship split between Channel Seven and The Sydney Morning Herald, which were both part of Fairfax then.

In those times Channel Seven was already quite commercial, but she remembers there being a good news service with some great journalists, including a news director named John Campbell.

“He gave me my first break and I’m therefore very fond of him. There were some really fantastic news people around at those times who knew the game and knew how to do news and how to write, so it was a great learning experience,” she says.

When she joined the journalistic ranks back in the late 70s it was somewhat of a man’s world. Reminiscing of her first years she recalls it being really tough to be a woman in commercial media. As a cadet she was always the one sent out to do the flossy supermarket stories.

“I remember standing in an isle doing a story on an extraordinary rise in the price of sugar. And I remember finishing and thinking: if this is what its about I don’t want to be doing this,” she recalls.

Before going into journalism, she had first started at university then dropped out to go into journalism. “I remember thinking: oh my goodness I think my father was right, I should have stuck with studying law. I remember thinking at the time, as a very raw and ambitious seventeen to eighteen-year old that I was in the wrong game because it was just awful, that degree of sexism and in those days it was quite blatant inside newsrooms as well.”

“You would always be the one to go and get the cups of tea and coffee. They would never ask a young male cadet to do the same thing, never, and they would often come with sexist barbs. Not sexually related barbs but sexist – that was offensive. It was just the way it was in those days,” she says.

A few years later Attard did find the spot that suited her in the Australian media landscape, and she stayed there for 28 years. “I feel like I found my spiritual homeland at the ABC,” she says.

At the ABC, she found a culture where the values were; to get a story out because it was an important story, rather than because it might be a popular one. She came from a culture of commercial media at Channel Seven, and after that at 2WS and 2GB, where she didn’t feel comfortable. This changed at the ABC.

“I felt as if I shared their news values. I loved their programs, I loved their commitment to fairness and accuracy and public interest journalism,” she says.

Attard stayed at the ABC for almost 30 years, during which, she was able to move from one program to another over a long period of time. During this time, she worked both in Australia and abroad. She felt as if she changed jobs every few years, but stayed within a culture that felt very comfortable.

Winning five Walkley Awards, it is not surprising that Attard is proud of her career. But there is one epoch that does stand out, as something she looks back on with particularly warm feelings.  That being her coverage of the collapse of the Soviet Union. She was in Moscow from December 1989 to 1994 and reported on the last years of Gorbachev’s rule, the cue against him, the rise of Boris Yeltsin and the collapse of Soviet communism. A time she found to be absolutely mind-boggling.

She had come from a background of almost clear obsession with everything Soviet. And suddenly found herself in Moscow reporting back to the Australian people about the biggest story in the world at the time, and was actually getting paid to do it.

“I used to wake up every morning and think that I was the luckiest person on the face of the earth. It was an extraordinarily privileged position to be in,” she says.

As exciting as the job was, it was an equally strenuous one as she worked 15-16 hours a day for almost four years. She remembers it as a hard job, but certainly also as a fascinating one.

Today Russia still takes up a big place in the former foreign correspondent’s heart and she can’t help small frown lines from appearing around her eyes when she talks of all the fascinating characters she met: the ordinary Russians on the streets, some extraordinary characters in the Russian political milieu, and in the foreign correspondent corps. Here she worked alongside people like David Remnick, current editor of ‘The New Yorker’.

“To have been in such a privileged position to have been able to watch these people in operation was an extraordinary thing,” she remembers.

Today Attard still follows Russia avidly. Even though she does at times find the news to be most distressing. After her posting she spent many years going back and forth between Australia and Russia because she was married to a Russian then.

Between 2003 and 2005 she ended up living in Russia again working as a lawyer in Moscow. Again she found it to be an extraordinary experience living there because of the changes that had occurred. The old Soviet was absolutely dead, and she found the new Russia to be an almost ugly 1970s Saudi Arabia.

“It was extraordinarily ugly, and I found that very difficult to cope with. But when I now look at what Putin has done to Russia and the fact that he has just been re-elected president, a lot of things make sense to me.”

“We have always known that the Russians love authority, they love a firm hand, and the fact that they have re-elected him gives you an inkling that this must still be true, even now 22 years after the fall of communism.”

In spite of Russia’s unfortunate development and her being less than impressed with President Putin, she still feels a very close connection to Russia, and she’s not about to close the door on her overseas romance.

“I would love to move back. I quite often feel, on a very deep guttural level, that I ought to be there. I feel in many senses that I was kind of born to live there. But at the moment it’s just not possible, so I’m here,” she explains.

In 2005 it was announced that Attard was taking over as host for ABC’s high profile watchdog program Media Watch. She stayed in this role for two years but found it to be a very taxing job and decided to resign after the 2007 season. She took as many blows as she could endure.

“I hate to say it but it’s a pretty tough job. People have always said to me, that if you are going to throw stones, you better be prepared to have a few thrown back at you. I just didn’t know that there would be quite so many stones thrown back at me. It’s a tough job, and not one that I especially enjoyed; I’ll have to say,” she admitted.

The hard days at Media Watch are now long gone, but Attard has far from slowed down. In the beginning of February she launched The Global Mail, which is funded by Wotif.com entrepreneur Graeme Wood. And the first two months has been intense.

“It has been chaotic, busy and crazy. Crazy hours, where you are in this building from seven in the morning to three the next morning. Just crazy hours, crazy lifestyle but a heck of a lot of fun,” she says.

Her hope is that the The Global Mail will function as a disrupter in Australian media, and a publication that people will value for approaching stories for their public interest worth and their values. Just as she hopes that people will appreciate the new sites’ worldwide reporting.

“I think that it is very sad that so much mainstream media has abandoned international coverage. As though Australians, because we are so far away from the rest of the world, are not interested in international affairs, when in fact I think we are. And I certainly think that if we are not, we ought to be,” she says adamantly.

“To be in a situation where you can have correspondents around the world who are on staff and professionally paid, who are doing a professional job, and bringing you information and news from the various regions of the world, is a very luxurious position to be in, and I think that it’s a really important role that they are playing.”

The Global Mail is unashamedly a current affairs website. Attard says that they will take note of the 24-hour news cycle, but that’s all. With all the other media fighting over the news she doesn’t feel that there’s anything particularly deep or penetrating that ‘The Global Mail’ could add to the current news cycle. There’s no need for another news player, but there is a need for a current affairs player.

“Today they are all writing the same thing, so our mission is to stay outside this echo chamber where they are all talking about the same thing. The mission here is to write stuff that in some cases is in the mainstream and is being talked about – but is not necessarily being written about in depth with some degree of thought and analysis.”

The Global Mail has been given funding for the first five years. As to whether the Australian people are in fact interested in foreign affairs remains to be seen.

But Attard remains optimistic.

“I think that the role of The Global Mail is to bring the world and Australia in the world to Australians and hopefully to anybody else around the world that likes the coverage.”

Voiceless, the animal protection institute, has a new confronting campaign aiming to improve animal living conditions on factory farms. Olivia Shead reports.

Chickens are one of the many animals subject to confinement, overcrowding and inhumane conditions associated with factory farming. Image: Britannica Advocacy for Animals.

For decades, publicity over animal rights has seemed to hover just out of view. However in 2011, there was huge growth of concern over the secret disgrace of Australia’s factory farms, as campaigns began spreading far and wide.

Now, Voiceless aims to do their part, with their new television advertisements catapulting into Australian living rooms.

The campaign, ‘Factory farming: the truth is hard to swallow’ features hard-hitting facts through emotion-driven storytelling. Focusing on the reality of pork and poultry farming, Voiceless opens the curtains on the often-unseen truths of cow stalls and hormone-induced hens.

With the support of Academy Award Winning Producer Emile Sherman, narration by actors and Voiceless Ambassadors Hugo Weaving and Abbie Cornish, Voiceless has a loud message to be heard.

Mr Weaving opens the campaign with haunting words.

“This year 10 billion animals worldwide and 500 million in Australia will suffer lives of pain and distress in factory farms,” he narrates in the film.

“If I treated a dog the way pigs and chickens are treated on these farms, I’d likely be prosecuted.”

The words ring true, with Australian law classifying animals as property – a commodity, confined to cages. Unlike many other similar campaigns, Voiceless does not show you an overly gruesome depiction of factory farming, instead attempting to hone in on common decency.

“We are not out to shock people with these ads,” said Sherman.

“We simply want the Australian public to think about where their food comes from, and to look further into factory farming.”

Australia is lagging greatly behind the European Union, who in the past decade passed the world’s toughest animal anti-cruelty laws. The laws saw the banning of the most cramped battery hen cages and the tightening of rules on pig castration and the slicing of their tails.

By relying on facts and figures, Voiceless hopes that the emotion driven up from the campaign can lead the public to pressure politicians.

“We all know how politics works; it’s not going to go anywhere unless politicians know there are votes behind those opinions,” said Dana Campbell, CEO of Voiceless.

However Australian animal laws are caught up in a circuit of contradiction, with those in charge of enforcing laws being the very people who protect the profits of the food industry.

Graeme McEwen, chair of the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel concurs.

“Animal welfare is administered by the departments of primary industries,” he said. “It’s like putting the minister for resources and mineral development in charge of climate change.”

Though there are supporters of Voiceless in the government, most notably newly appointed foreign minister Bob Carr, anti-animal cruelty laws are still far from being revised.

Executive Director of the Cattle Council of Australia, David Inall, spoke of Voiceless as being at the “more extreme end” of the spectrum when it came to animal rights.

“It [Carr's support of Voiceless] is certainly something that we would harbour some concerns about,” Inall said.

“We would hope that Mr Carr is able to put aside any of his views in that area and to provide a very strong service for Australian agriculture, that is what we would expect of a foreign minister.”

With opinions falling on both sides, Voiceless continues to speak loudly.

Both the Seven and Nine Network have offered free advertisement slots for the campaign and Campbell has been in conversation with GetUp with regards to the continuation of the campaign for future months.

Whatever the case is, it is clear that Voiceless aims to place the future of animals in people’s hands.“Ultimately, each of us must respond to animal cruelty in our own way,” said Campbell.

“The response is often a journey, where the starting point is learning the truth that lies behind your fork.”