Something that is no doubt worrying readers and many other Australians is the raft of repressive legislation being introduced, allegedly to fight terrorism. This includes what has become known as the ASIO bill, which at the time of writing was being held over until Federal Parliament sits again in February. If this bill goes through in its original form it will allow ASIO to hold people who have not committed a crime, or are even suspected, but who may have some information about or links with alleged terrorists.

The NSW Parliament has already pushed through draconian legislation known as the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act. This law can be used in a broad range of situations, widens police search powers and limits the possibility of courts reviewing decisions made under this law. Its even been claimed by one academic, Aiden Ricketts, that the decisions made by the police minister under the act cannot be challenged or questioned on any grounds in any court whatsoever. This seems a good way to turn NSW into a police state.

This tendency to hit us with layers of repressive legislation is unfortunately not new and it seems most of our politicians will revert to authoritarianism at the first excuse. Over the years we have had everything from random breath testing (RBT) and anti-vilification legislation to laws on what guns, if any we can keep. The general upshot is that we are having personal freedoms eroded more and more over the years. Some measures, like RBT seem to have some positive effect on saving lives. The gun laws and gun buy back scheme were followed briefly by a reduction in homicides but this shortly reversed and the homicide rates actually increased. Its unlikely that the banning of numerous types of handguns will have any better chance of reducing crime. Banning of handguns in the United Kingdom saw an increase in gun related crime.

It seems we are losing the fight against crime. Miranda Devine, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald (12/12/02) said "between 1993 and 2001, NSW suffered the worst increases in crime of any state, with the robbery rate more than doubling and a 30% increase in the rate of break-ins". She goes on to state that Australia suffered from the highest rise in crime rates of any Western country and the risk of becoming a victim of crime was higher here than in the US or England. While crime rates soared here they tended to drop in most other Western countries over the last decade.

While on the question of crime rates we are often told that our homicide rate is low by international standards. If we compare the rate in the US, around 5.51 homicides per 100,000 of population with the rate in Australia, around 1.8 per 100,000 if we take the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figure, we seem to be doing much better. What we are not told is that homicide rates are determined by different methods and hence give different figures according to the method used. Interpol statistics give a homicide rate for Australia (3.62) that is twice that of the ABS figure making us much closer to the US figure. In fact an American living in an all white area would probably have a lower chance of being murdered than would the average person in this country. More restrictions on our freedoms have not resulted in a safer society.

And then there is the question of how fairly and effectively the anti-terrorist laws will be used. The operation of our anti-discrimination and racial vilification laws has been a farce. Our government, which claims it is getting tough with illegal immigrants, has managed to lose 14,000 failed asylum seekers (as reported in The Australian 14/12/02). If the operation of our anti-terrorist laws is handled as efficiently the terrorists will have little to fear. What could well happen is that the laws will hardly be used at all in the near future but stay on the books as sleeper legislation to be used years from now in a way no one had intended. Hopefully the ASIO bill will have its worst features amended. It would be preferable however if this and similar legislation were not enacted.

In our last issue we looked at the problem of black violence in America. Something noticeable about many of these incidents was the incredibly light sentences given to the assailants. In contrast, Americas judiciary comes down extremely hard on any whites convicted of so-called racist crimes.

In a previous issue we mentioned the case of a white man who was jailed for 15 years just for chasing some Mexicans out of a park. Judgements that would otherwise be considered unusually harsh seem to be common in such cases and sometimes charges are laid on very slim evidence. Recently a young white woman in California, whose activism seems to have amounted to no more than distributing used clothes and toys to poor white children, has faced felony charges. Some time ago police found petrol and nails in her flat, three years later it was decided these amounted to bomb making materials (Source: American Dissident Voices).

Cases like this are not new however. Back in 1982 another activist, Tom Metzger, spent 45 days in jail for attending a cross burning. Worse was to come. In 1988 a group of skinheads attacked some Ethiopian migrants with baseball bats and one of the migrants died. Legal action for compensation was taken and a $12.5 million judgement made. Although Metzger was not involved in the attack, it was alleged he had influenced the skinheads and had to pay a substantial part of the judgement, losing his own home as a consequence.

In 1984 a Jewish radio host, Alan Berg was murdered and white activists were blamed. David Lane, a former member of the KKK and Aryan Nations, was alleged to have driven the getaway car for the person who shot Berg. It was claimed his actions also violated Berg's civil rights and he was sentenced to 150 years imprisonment. He was given an extra 40 years for racketeering to support an organisation known as The Order (www.adl.org).

Nevertheless in December 2002 three people were convicted for throwing burning crosses onto the lawn of a black family in Chickasha, Oklahoma. Michael Dodson, a leader of a local white supremacist group was sentenced to 14 years and 9 months, and his accomplices, both females, were given sentences of 22 and 33 months (UPI/www.washingtontimes.com).

Around the same a time a "white supremacist" and neo-Nazi, Leo Felton was sentenced to nearly 22 years. It was alleged he planned to bomb Jewish and African-American landmarks in Boston. It appears Felton had never got around to making a bomb let alone exploding one, but he had materials including ammonium nitrate and a timing device extracted from a coffee maker in his apartment. A curious aspect of this case was that Felton's father was a black architect and his mother a white civil rights worker (UPI/www.washingtontimes.com).

Perhaps the most notorious case of persecution was what became known as the Ruby Ridge Incident (or Massacre). This involved a violent confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992. Apparently Weaver had not committed any crime hence an undercover agent working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms tried entrapment and encouraged him to cut down and sell a shotgun. On 21 August 1992 a team of six US marshals entered Weaver's land. An altercation occurred between the marshals and Weavers 14-year-old son Sammy and Kevin Harris, a friend of Weavers. Sammy died after being shot in the back and Harris killed one of the marshals. Shortly afterwards the FBI sent in a team of snipers. Although neither Weaver nor Harris fired their weapons, Harris was shot in the chest and Weaver was shot in the back. Weaver survived but his wife Vicki was not so lucky. She died after being shot in the head while standing in the doorway of the cabin holding her baby (James Bovard, Wall Street Journal 30/6/95).

Its not surprising that many white Americans are losing faith in the system and their own government, and adopting what were not so long ago considered extremist ideas.

A few years back when Australians were arguing about the retention of the White Australia Policy, Brazil was cited as a successful multi-racial society. Brazil is multi-racial but nowadays it is far from successful.

The official figures for Brazil's ethnic make up are 55% white (mainly Portuguese, German, Italian, Spanish and Polish), 38% Mulatto (mixed white and African ancestry), 6% black and the remaining 1% a mixture of indigenous Indians and Asians. In actual fact many of those classed as white probably have some black or Indian ancestry. White people tend to make up the wealthier classes with blacks and Indians at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.

As in many Third World countries, especially those with large black populations, there is a serious problem with AIDS and in 1999 around 18,000 Brazilians died of the disease. The infant mortality rate is 36.96 per 1,000 live births, which is about six times the rate in Australia. The fertility rate is higher than ours but the population growth rate is actually lower. Brazil seems to be losing more people by emigration than it gains by immigration. In 2001 the net migration rate was estimated to be below zero.

Poverty and crime are serious problems in Brazil. A third of Brazilians earn less than $ 1 (US) a day, social institutions, including family, community associations and churches have deteriorated, and the power of drug-traffickers and arms-smugglers is increasing.

There has been an astronomical increase in the homicide rate over the last two decades. In 1980 it was 11.7 homicides per 100,000 of population but by 1999 it had risen to 26.2. This is an increase of 223%. The rate varies across the country but tends to be highest in the most densely urbanised and industrialised southeastern region. Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have recorded rates of 60 while Vitoria recorded a rate of 80.5 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1999.

The police are often seen as part of the problem rather than the solution due to their poor training and inefficiency. A survey in Rio de Janeiro found that 60% of robbery victims did not report the crime to the police due to what was perceived as their incompetence and corruption.

The racial ancestry of Brazils' population did not portend well for her future and the impact of globalisation seems to have worsened matters.

During World War II thousands of Japanese-Americans were taken from the west coast and relocated in special camps in the interior. Myths grew up that they were all placed in internment camps, unlike other groups and this reflected racism against the Japanese.

In actual fact only a minority of Japanese resident in America during the war were actually put into internment camps and this included many who blatantly supported the Japanese government. Most of the Japanese however were placed in relocation centres where they were free to leave and work or study outside as they wished. There were no guards, watchtowers or barbed wire at these centres. This was despite evidence that some Japanese in America were acting as spies for the Japanese government.

To compensate for any economic losses an amount of $38 million was paid out to the evacuees after the war. Nevertheless further claims were made for compensation years afterwards and in 1988 the US government paid out $20,000 (US) to each of 60,000 surviving evacuees. These included 6,000 who were born in the centres, 4,300 who left the centres to go to American universities during the war, and 3,500 who had renounced their American citizenship and asked to be sent back to Japan.

The claims of compensation were largely based on claims of racism but the evidence does not indicate the Japanese were singled out because of their race. Almost half of those who were placed in real internment camps were Europeans, mainly Germans and Italians. This is despite the fact that these two groups were more assimilated into US society, they were more likely to enlist in the US armed services and almost none sought to renounce their American citizenship or return to Europe. Some of the Japanese who were interned were released in 1944 and the rest by June 1946. Some of the Europeans were not released until 1948.

Clearly the Japanese had won compensation, which in total came to $1.6 billion, by a misinterpretation of historical events and the reverse racism currently active in the US today.

(Source: "What Really Happened", American Renaissance January 2003)

The 2001 census showed a change in religions stated which indicates a decline in the proportion of Australians that are Christian and an increase in most other religions. In 1947, 88% of the population were Christians and the number of Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims was insignificant. The last census showed that Christians had fallen to 68% but Buddhists were 1.9% (358,000), Muslims 1.5% (282,000), Hindus 0.5% (95,000) and Jews 0.45% (84,000).

Between 1996 and 2001 the population increased by 5.7% but the number of Christians only increased by 1.4%, whereas the number of Buddhists, the fastest growing religion, increased by 79.1%.

Among Christians the number of some denominations, Anglican, Brethren and Churches of Christ for instance, actually fell. The number of Oriental Christians increased by 15.9%.

(Source: "Globalization and Recent Changes in the Demography of Australian Religious Groups: 1947 to 2001" by Gary Bouma, People and Place, vol 10, no. 4, 2002).

While there are plenty of problems ahead the overall future for Australia's children will be bright according to an article by Bob Beale and Melissa Sweet, "The Alpha Kids", which appeared in The Bulletin (19/11/02). Girls born in this country now can expect to live an average of 82 years while boys can expect 77 years. A third of girls will live to 90 or more. They will be more affluent than their parents and if current projections are correct there will be a doubling of real per capita income every 30 years.

The proportion of young in our society is declining due to the lowering of the fertility rate, currently around 1.7 babies per woman; the lowest ever recorded in this country. In 1901, children 14 years or younger made up a third of the population, while nowadays they are just one in five of the population. In 50 years time they will be one in seven. One of the reasons for declining birth rates could the cost of raising children. It has been estimated to cost parents around $450,000 to raise two children to the age of 20.

Infant mortality rates have declined enormously over the last century, from 103 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1901 down to the present rate of 5 per 1,000 live births, a rate that is expected to fall even lower. Death rates for older children have also fallen.

In most ways our children's health has improved, they suffer less from tooth decay, birth deformities, sudden infant death syndrome and fatal injuries. On the other hand they suffer more from asthma, diabetes, motor vehicle accidents and drug abuse. While most children are not overweight the proportion who are has increased. Obesity among children tripled in the decade up to 1995 and some children have showed signs of developing heart disease. Much of the reason for this has been the increased amount of time children spend in the front of televisions, computers and electronic games. Not surprisingly there has been a lowering of physical abilities among young people. A study with primary school children found that they could not jump as far as children did 15 years ago.

A curious fact about the Australian population is that over the last century the average height has increased but only at half the rate of the average European or North American; unfortunately our average weight has increased at the same rate.

On a brighter note it appears young children are much less likely to suffer sexual abuse and there are much fewer teenage ex-nuptial births than a generation ago. Childbearing by teenagers reached its lowest rate ever in 1999. Overall Beale and Sweet are optimistic about the future of most Australian children, or at least those placed high enough up the socio-economic ladder. For those not so well placed the future might not be so rosy.

Bill Bunbury will be well known to listeners of Radio nationals social history programs. In fact much that is in the book was also covered in some of the "Hindsight" radio series.

The book deals with the impact of the award of equal wages to Aboriginals working in outback areas of the Northern Territory and the Kimberleys.

Station owners and managers in remote areas generally had many, in some cases hundreds, of Aborigines living on the stations and providing a ready source of labour. Aboriginal stockmen became a feature of station life for decades and others worked as domestic staff. In return, the Aborigines were given rations of food and clothing, and generally some basic accommodation. Even those who did not work were often given rations. Monetary remuneration, where it was paid at all, was generally well below the award wages paid to white workers.

Although they were underpaid and sometimes exploited there were a number of benefits for the Aborigines. At least some were employed, they didnt starve, they continued to live on the land their ancestors had inhabited, and they could still go walkabout and continue some of their traditional cultural practices.

Nevertheless the push for equal wages was building up and in 1965 a case came before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commission came down with a judgement favouring equal wages but seems not to have considered the implications for Aborigines or pastoralists.

The outcome was in many ways a catastrophe. Station owners were not prepared to pay full wages to stockmen as well as provide for relatives. In some cases only about 15 Aborigines out of 300 or so living on a station would be working. Aborigines were forced off the stations and moved to townships, most of which did not have the facilities to handle them. Many fell into a life of indolence and drunkenness. There was a drop in morale and they were now cut off from the land.

Nevertheless it was probably inevitable that equal wages would be introduced. Possibly it should have been done latter or brought in more gradually. Nevertheless what Bunbury's book shows is that well-meaning decisions can have unforeseen and disastrous consequences.

Traditionally stories of how humans evolved show us as having "come down from the trees" or basically being a chimpanzee that learnt to walk. Gribbin and Cherfas agree that we are closely related to chimpanzees but assert that our common ancestor was a walking anthropoid. It was not therefore a case of humans coming down from the trees but chimpanzees and gorillas returning to the trees.

At any rate humans, chimps and gorillas are surprisingly closely related and may have a common ancestor who lived only 3.6 to 4 million years ago. Creatures known as australopithecines, which walked upright, may have been ancestors to all three species.

How do scientists tell how close or far apart two species are? Comparisons of DNA can show a wide or narrow difference. A dog and a raccoon for instance have accumulated differences in DNA of 12% which is estimated to mean that we have to travel back 20 to 25 million years to find a common ancestor. The difference between human and chimpanzee DNA is little more than 1% hence indicating a closer relationship.

Physiologically there are many similarities between humans and the other anthropoids. A specialisation of apes is the way they can hang by their arms from branches and stretch sideways something that humans can do but monkeys cannot. Curiously this means that humans can, if they are fit enough, swing by their arms (known as brachiation) from "monkey bars" but monkeys cannot.

This ability for brachiation is shared with more distantly related anthropoids like orangutans and gibbons. Nevertheless to find a common ancestor with the orangutans we must go back 7 million years, with gibbons 10 million. The oldest anthropoid we have evidence of is a creature known as Aegyptopithecus (Egyptian ape) known only from fossils believed to be 28 million years old.

The first modern humans (Homo sapiens), according to Gribbon and Cherfas arose 500,000 years ago, probably in East Africa. Neanderthal man is considered sub-species of modern humans and appears to have had a larger brain. The authors suggest that some of us may still carry the genes of Neanderthal ancestors.

Another way to compare the relationship between species is by examining haemoglobin, which has a complex molecule that includes hundreds of amino acids. Again humans are shown to be closely related to African apes, only one amino acid is different between the gorilla and humans.

When it comes to differences within the human species the book claims that differences between races are no greater that between individuals of the same race. Its then claimed that human races are not biologically meaningful entities. Its further asserted that the two authors of the book probably differ from one another in about 6% of their genes, but neither would differ from any other person on Earth by more than 7 or 8%. Exactly what research this is based on is not stated and no reference is shown. Nevertheless if we accept these assertions on the number of genes we get a difference between members of different races of 1 to 2% and this comes to about 300 to 600 genes more than enough to give both the physical and psychological differences we associate with race.

Genetic differences and differences in DNA should not be confused. A gene is made up of a string of DNA, a thousand or more units long, and only one of these units has to be different to give a genetic difference. There could be a 5% genetic difference between two people but the difference in DNA may be as little as one tenth of 1%.

A controversial theory brought up in the book relates to neoteny, or the tendency for a species to retain certain juvenile characteristics. This is used to explain differences between humans and other anthropoids. For instance, like juveniles and infants, we don't seem to be well designed for our particular way of life. Compared to apes and most other animals, a human baby's brain is relatively small compared to an adult. A rhesus monkey at birth has a brain about two-thirds the adult size but a human baby's brain is only a quarter of the size of a human adult's brain.

Another theory discussed, although the authors seem unimpressed by it, is that humans developed in an aquatic environment. Evidence of this is our relative hairlessness and our tendency to have more body fat than other anthropoids.

The book discusses a number of other theories, including those based on fossil evidence which give the date of divergence between man and chimpanzee as between 16 and 20 million years ago. This is four to five times the period that Gribbin and Chefas support. In fact a theme that comes up throughout the book is that we learn more about our evolution by studying molecular rather than fossil evidence.

Although there are sections where assertions are not properly explained or supported the book is an interesting read and recommended to anyone interested in human evolution.

The following reviews originally appeared in issue number four but are considered important enough to include again.

In 1989 scientists in Canada researching the declining numbers of beluga wales opened up a dead specimen for examination. They were not quite prepared for what they found. Whales previously examined often had tumours, ulcers, gum diseases, twisted spines and other abnormalities. This particular specimen not only had the common abnormalities but it had two sets of gonads; one female set and one male. It also had much of the other male and female plumbing.

Other such freaks of nature have been found. In Florida a large number of male alligators were found to have undersized and malformed penises. In different parts of North America female gulls have been found trying to nest with other females. In fact they were dubbed the gay gulls.

These are just some of the freakish occurrences described by the authors in "Our Stolen Future". Others include thinning eggshells of eagles, frequent abandonment of their eggs by other bird species and declines in the average testicle size of certain fish species. Many types of wildlife have suffered a substantial drop in population.

The weird occurrences are not really freaks of nature but have been caused by the thousands of artificial chemicals created and brought into use over the last fifty years. Most are not poisonous in the normal sense but their effect is much more insidious.

The creature which ingests molecules of these chemicals is often not itself harmed. Its progeny, however are the ones to suffer. Its progeny, however are the ones to suffer. For instance a number of artificial chemicals mimic natural occurring hormones such as estrogen resulting in bizarre physical abnormalities or strange behaviour.

Fortunately most of the more freakish results occurring in animal species have not, as yet, become common in humans. This does not mean that we are safe. The authors point out that a number of cancer types are becoming more common. They also point to research which shows that human sperm counts have tended to drop significantly in recent decades.

Some of the chemicals known to be dangerous, like DDT and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) have already been banned in many countries. However with something like a thousand new artificial chemicals being introduced each year it is virtually impossible to ensure that some wont cause serious but unforeseen problems in the future.

Most of us will have ingested some of these chemicals and children nowadays can have a veritable cocktail of them inside when they are born.

The authors have given some hints for the individual to minimise the risks. For instance washing our hands regularly is important as we often touch chemicals unknowingly. Keeping our use of pesticides and plastics to a minimum is also recommended.

On a broader level they believe hormone-disrupting chemicals should be phased out and laws introduced to take into account the effect of the cumulative exposure to chemicals. They also call for much more research.

Although the authors are American and the book deals mainly with the situation in the United States and Canada, the same type of problems are no doubt arising in Australia. Our lower population and smaller industrial base has probably meant we are not faced with the same quantity of chemicals as the North Americans. We should not be complacent, however, especially as small amounts of chemical can travel considerable distances.

The book deals with a worrying phenomenon the affects us all.

The National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families brought down its report, "Bringing Them Home".

In response, Ron Brunton has written "Betraying the Victims" which is largely critical of the report. Here are some quotes from that publication:

"The seriousness of the stolen generations issue should not be underestimated, and Aborigines are fully entitled to demand an acknowledgment of the wrongs that many of them suffered at the hands of various authorities. But both those who were wronged and the nation as a whole are also entitled to an honest and rigorous assessment of the past.Bringing Them Home is one of the most intellectually and morally irresponsible official documents produced in recent years.

The following quotes are taken from "The Slave Trade" by Hugh Thomas, 1997: