Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Bill to allow surrogacy for gay couples and single men progresses
9 Oct 2018

The Western Australian Legislative Assembly has passed a bill tonight that will make it possible for single men and gay couples to access altruistic surrogacy.

The bill, introduced by Health Minister Roger Cook will amend current surrogacy laws which only allows for single women, lesbian couples and heterosexual couples to seek surrogate arrangements.

The changes will bring Western Australia in line with Commonwealth law since exemptions which allowed for the discriminatory law to be in place expired in July last year.

The bill will also have WA law match surrogacy laws in every other state and territory besides the Northern Territory, which does not allow for surrogacy at all.

The legislation passed after a long parliamentary debate through Tuesday afternoon and late into night, which at times saw heated exchanges between Liberal and Labor MPs.

Opening the debate John Carey, the member for Perth, said that as one of only three openly gay members of parliament in the lower and upper house, this legislation was deeply personal to him.

“I came into politics to believe in the best of people, to appeal to the best our our humanity, to show greater kindness, to understand that despite our differences there is much that brings us together.”

“This is why I proudly stand here today as a member of parliament, and to support progressive change, to support that humanity in our community.

“I stand on behalf of the gay and lesbian community to support this important social change for Western Australia.” said Carey outlining that there has been a long journey is fighting for equality beginning with the decriminalisation of homosexuality through to the marriage debate and apology for historical homosexual convictions.

“This debate shares many similarities with the marriage equality debate and other debates about the rights of all people in Western Australia, and I want to be one the public record and very clear. There are many children in Western Australian that are being raised right now lovingly.”

“They are loved, They are respected. They are supported in their aspirations and their dreams. They go to school, they visit school, they to to playgroups and they mix with they peers, and they are all raised by same-sex parents, and many of them male couples.

Carey said he personally knew many of the same-sex couples raising children in Western Australia and many of them lived in his electorate.

Carey said the arguments against allowing male same-sex couples to access surrogacy were the same arguments against marriage equality and once again those opposed needed to realise that families came in a diverse range of configurations.

“They’re all aspiring for one same thing, and that is creating a loving and stable environment of their children.”

Carey said those opposed to the proposed changes were driven by fear.

“It is based on fear, we’ve seen that fear and I know it personally. It is a fear that stems and creates homophobia in our society, that creates discrimination and even hatred against gay and lesbian people.”

Carey said as an openly gay MP he had experienced homophobia and discrimination which included being called a “faggott” in the street, or reciveing texts that accused him of being a pedophile.

Carey said removing another form of discrimination from legislation would contribute to reducing homophobia across society.

“Every bit of reform which tackles discrimination, which removes those barriers is critically important. It’s not just for those same-sex couples who want to have a child, but also for all those young generations who will see another part of discrimination dismantled from our legislation.”

Carey said that substantial research had shown that the children raised by single parents and same-sex couples faired just as well as those raised by heterosexual couples, but often unreliable research was put forward from questionable sources.

The member for Perth implored his parliamentary colleagues to “strip away the barriers of discrimination”.

Labor’s Amber-Jade Sanderson said the legislation was fundamentally about removing discrimination and the ability to fulfill the role of being a parent had nothing to do with people’s relationship status or sexuality.

Sanderson said the fact that Western Australia had the highest ‘Yes’ result in the marriage postal survey had shown that our society strongly supported equality. Sanderson also noted that the changes to the bill did not allow same-sex couples to gain access to surrogacy but also single men – and single men included widowers.

Sanderson shared that a constituent in her electorate who was trying to start a family was unable to fulfill his late wife’s wishes for her eggs to be fertilised and brought to term by a surrogate.

Maylands MP Lisa Baker said she didn’t think it was the government’s place to deny one group of people access to a service that is available to others.

“I fundamentally believe that it is not up to us to be saying that for a lesbian couple – for people like myself, for others – it’s okay for us to choose to have children, to raise families, to access surrogacy, or to do those kind of things to bring children in to our lives… but that other members in this house who may be gay, males, would not be allowed to bring children into their relationships,” Baker said.

“Biological children, adopted, foster are all equal in the law at the moment in Western Australia. All this bill is asking is that children from surrogacy are also treated equally in the law.”

The Liberals’ John McGrath argued that there were many questions to be asked around the proposal to change the legislation arguing that there was a lack of research around surrogacy in Western Australia.

McGrath said there were concerns about what would happen if a surrogate decides they want to keep the child, or if the people engaging the surrogate reject a child because the child has a disability.

The member for South Perth also said he had concerns about people being coerced into surrogacy against their will by family members.

McGrath also called for people accessing surrogacy to undergo criminal record check before being approved for a surrogacy agreement.

The member for Hillarys Peter Katsambanis said he would not support the legislation because there he believes there are inadequate protections in checking applicant’s criminal history, and that there was a lack of evidence supporting the need for the change.

“Primarily and above all else – I am certainly not convinced that this legislation would in any way enhance the best interests of children in Western Australia,” Katsambanis said.

Nationals leader Mia Davies rose to support the bill, speaking on her own experience with two of her friends who are gay fathers raising a child together.

“I hear the arguments of those who have stood and said this is about our desires and not about the child’s, but I can promise you that in this experience this child is loved and will be raised and will be provided with an amazing experience and have a fantastic opportunity to be a success in our community,” Davies said.

The member for Central Wheatbelt said while Parliament was the right place to air concerns, she was certain the amendment would bring positive change to the community.

“When we’ve had debates like this in the past – so the same sex marriage debate and when this bill was introduced originally… when they came to pass the world carried on, and I think if you take a very human response to all of this, which is that if you are talking about people that genuinely love and want to raise and nurture happy families – no matter what they look like – then you can’t go too far wrong.”

Liberal MPs Zak Kirkup and Kyran O’Donnell spoke in favour of the bill with Kirkup citing conversations with his wife and the writings of Robert Menzies on the family for his decision to support the change.

“We believe in a just and humane society, where the importance of family and the rule of law and order is maintained,” the member for Dawesville said.

“I genuinely believe this legislation goes some way to ensuring that a family can exist however the modern definition today is. I think we need to recognise that the defined family is no longer the traditional nuclear family as it were, and there are circumstances that do change.” Kirkup said.

Kirkup shared that his brother-in-law was in a same sex relationship, and he thought they would make excellent parents if they chose to do so.

“The notion of family now is completely different, and I think we need support any measure which allow us to have a loving environment for the raising of children.” Kirkup said.

Kirkup said he was proud to stand for equal rights for all, and the previous surrogacy laws had clearly left out some member of society.

The member for Kalgoorlie, Kiran O’Donnell also voiced support for the bill. O’Donnell said his time as a police officer had taught him many things, one was that people who abused children often did not have criminal records.

The former police officer said he also had many former colleagues in the police force who were gay and he couldn’t imagine telling them that they would not make good parents.

Newly elected member for Darling Range Alyssa Hayden gave one of the more bizarre arguments against allowing male same-sex couples to access surrogacy.

Hayden said she’d done a “quick google” to prepare for the debate and had come across an interview with Millie Fontana who advocates against same-sex couples being allowed to raise children.

Hayden recounted that Fontana, who was raised by her lesbian mother and her same-sex partner, had shared her distress at not being allowed to meet her biological father.

“This is not an example of someone who is anti-same sex marriage” Hayden said of Fontana, despite Fontana having been one of the most high profile advocates against marriage equality.

Fontana has previously been supported by the Australian Christian Lobby to lobby federal politicians against marriage equality, and has made numerous public speaking engagements and media appearances arguing against allowing same-sex couples to marry or raise children.

Hayden went on to question if there was a genuine need to allow single men to access altruistic surrogacy because no single women had applied in the last decade.

The Liberal Bill Marmion voiced his opposition to the bill noting that he was the father of five children. Marmion shared correspondence from constituents that raised concern about the number of non-nuclear families in society and views that children were better off when raised by heterosexual parents.

Labor’s Janine Freeman noted that the Labor party has introduced legislation in the ’90s that outlawed surrogacy. Freeman said her feminist beliefs formed her views against surrogacy but she was also a realist.

“What happened, what did we do? We pushed a demand, we pushed a need into poor countries, we pushed it unregulated and we ended up in a situation where people went overseas to gain access to their beloved child.”

Freeman said she rather have regulated altruistic surrogacy in Australia than see people heading overseas. The member for Mirrabooka said if Liberal members were truly opposed to surrogacy they should ban it for everyone, rather than supporting the current laws that discriminate against some people.

“If you’re so opposed to surrogacy then you should move an amendment to this bill and ban it.” Freeman said. “If you’re so appalled with surrogacy then ban it, but do not say that one section of society can’t have it while everyone else does. That’s hypocritical, it’s discriminatory, it’s outrageous.”

“I will not stand in this place and have someone tell me that a man rears a child differently than a woman does, and it’s the maternal aspect and the parternal aspect. Let me tell you – I do not do the washing, I do not do the shopping, I do not do the cooking. I do not rear the child, it’s not a gendered thing, the only difference is we have a womb.”

This lead to a heated exchange with the Liberal’s John McGrath with Freeman telling McGrath to “have the guts” to move an amendment to ban the practice.

Freeman concluded by saying she did hold concerns for people who felt that they had to have their own children to have a sense of family, but it was important that there was no discrimination.

The bill will now be read and debated in the Legislative Council.

Leigh Andrew Hill, Graeme Watson

FrontPage News / Media Release: Make the AIDS Council Great Again #MAGA
« Last post by Mary-Jane on October 21, 2018, 10:03:58 AM »
Media Release:
“Make the AIDS Council Great Again” #MAGA

The Perth Sisters of the Order of Perpetual Indulgence are holding a Client and Members of Western Australia AIDS Council (WAAC) protest outside The AIDS Council building at 664 Murray Street West Perth at 4.30 pm - 7.30pm Monday 22 October 2018.

The Sisters will be carrying “Make the AIDS Council Great Again” placards and distributing copies of the HIV Institute of WA’s Discussion Paper on HIV Criminalisation in WA.

The protest is being held during the WAAC AGM to raising awareness about the lack of meaningful grassroots consultation with consumers on decisions that affect People Living with HIV and their families/loved ones.

The Sisters would also like to draw attention to the lack of public education and HIV awareness designed to reduce Stigma and Discrimination that is still entrenched in the Community as has been seen in the letter about Kerryn Phelps in the Wentworth By Election Campaign.

We are also supporting the “Stop HIV Stigma. Australian Needs a New National HIV Campaign.” which has been launched on as a response to the Wentworth Letter and The Sisters call for WAAC to reduce Stigma in our own backyard by implementing the U=U education campaign in the wider community plus strategies to reduce LGBT Domestic Violence & The Gay Meth Crisis.

WAAC has made several decisions which affect PLHIV's and has failed to consult with consumers and are failing to implement the principals of MIPA when planning strategies or reviewing policies which effect consumers in WA. The Meaningful Involvement of Positive People Principles is the International best practice industry standard endorsed by WAAC.

Medication and Consultation RE M clinic Co-payments
There was No consultation with the HIV community and/or clients when Charges for HIV Medication were imposed at Hospital Pharmacies. It was unacceptable for patients to find out about HIV charges when they went to collect their medications. There are many in the community experiencing financial hardship and this decision caused a great deal of stress and anxiety in the Community.

In the interest of transparency and Accountability to Consumers, WAAC needs to reveal whether or not they supported the decision to implement payments for HIV medications. Further, WAAC needs to reveal when the proposed fees to access Medical Care at the Gay Men’s Health Clinic will be implemented. The Sisters are calling for HIV to be included in a One Stop Shop Clinic modelled on the Melbourne Sexual Health Clinic. This will lead to reducing the stigma caused by HIV only services.

Decriminalisation of HIV in Western Australia
The Sisters support the enormous body of work which proves the Decriminalisation of HIV is an important step in the prevention of HIV transmissions. The Sisters believe HIV should be treated as just another STI and transmissions should not be dealt with by the Criminal Justice System but managed as a Mental Health Issue. In Western Australia it is unacceptable that Trans women are placed in men’s prisons.

The Sisters are concerned that WAAC’s utilisation of a student work experience program to write their long awaited discussion paper on HIV Criminalisation demonstrates a lack of commitment to the issues and their consumers. This is a complex issue and as the NGO funded to Support HIV people, WAAC needs to address this with professional legal advice.

WAAC charges Private and Public Nursing Homes Fees to access their HIV Accreditation Training Program. The Aged Care Royal Commission has identified that release of information to consumers is a a barrier for people to plan their futures. Sisters call for WAAC to stop refusing to release of data to positive people about which Nursing Homes have completed their Training Program and we’re calling for WAAC to make a submission to the Royal Commission on Behalf of Positive People.

Change of Name
“The Sisters applaud the long overdue proposal to de-stigmatise the Name and Brand of the AIDS Council and hope this ushers in a Change of Culture and a New Era of Consultation & collaborative engagement with the Community - Make the AIDS Council Great Again”, said Mother Gretta.

Finally, The Sisters, once again, are calling for WAAC, again, to reinstate the financial support for the only HIV Grassroots Organised event The International Candlelight Memorial.

For More Information contact The Sister's Official Spokesperson on HIV, Mother Gretta at

Colorado makes history as the 1st state issuing intersex birth certificates

By Sarah Toce Sunday, September 23, 2018

Colorado has become the first state to issue an intersex birth certificate to a person that is medically accurate. Previously, just New York City had done so. Anunnaki Ray Marquez is now the proud new owner of their own identity on record.

Marquez identifies as a gender non-conforming androgynous gay man. What this means, essentially, is that they have an assortment of hormones, chromosomes, and secondary sex characteristics that can’t be categorized by the two binary sexes once only available on birth certificates.

In order to obtain their corrected birth certificate, Marquez had to petition the state government and provide numerous medical documents for verification. Once confirmed by the Colorado state government, Marquez’s birth certificate was updated to reflect “intersex” instead of “male” or “female.”

Marquez currently works as an activist for the intersex organization Jax Youth Equality in Jacksonville, Florida.

They work as an activist for the intersex group Jax Youth Equality.

“Here’s the thing that confuses people: My biological sex is intersex,” Marquez said. “We live in a world that thinks that should be in alignment with my gender identity.”

But biological sex and gender identity don’t always match, Marquez told

“My gender identity doesn’t match: it’s non-conforming, androgynous male,” Marquez said. “My sexual orientation confuses people even more. If I have an intersex body, they get confused when I say I’m gay.”

To give some background, Sara Kelly Keenan became the first person in U.S. history to receive an intersex birth certificate in New York City in 2016. New York City has its own vital records department separate from New York State records.

The Intersex and Genderqueer Recognition Project tracks equality and advancements concerning non-binary rights. The group has seen a leap in intersex birth certificates since Keenan’s was approved in New York City.

Making it even sweeter, Marquez received their updated birth certificate on the same day a federal judge ruled that the State Department can’t deny passports to non-binary and intersex citizens.

General Discussions / TRUE Locations Of Israel AND Jerusalem
« Last post by Mary-Jane on October 15, 2018, 11:21:16 PM »
TRUE Locations Of Israel AND Jerusalem FOUND!! It’s Not Where You Think!!

Editor's Note:
This article contains troubling and complex ideas and our publishing of it is not an endorsement. Do not read it if you find these matters disturbing!



In this video, you will see the TRUE Restored Locations of Ancient Scriptural Places — Places such as Jerusalem, Mount Zion, Ophir, Gibeon, Beersheba, AND MORE!!! You will also see Ancient Maps from as early as the 15th century, and even Ancient Maps nearly 500 years old containing Scriptural Locations such as Babylon, Ammon, and Agag. From Galilee to Nazareth; From Mount Sinai to Susa — We Will Uncover It ALL!!!!

We will also explore different Ancient Maps Of Africa with even more potential Scriptural Locations. We will share the academic, archeological, geographical, historical, and Scriptural references when it comes to these True Locations — and also Expose The LIES that we have been spoon-fed for well over THOUSANDS OF YEARS!! AND AS ALWAYS, YOU DECIDE!

May this video Open your eyes to the Truth and cause you to Research MORE of what is being HIDDEN!; May this video be Edifying unto you and unto all of those watching; And may this video Assist you in your own personal studies and research!



ALSO SEE — The REAL Exodus Location PROOF!!


ALSO SEE — “Jesus?!” Did They Tamper With That TOO?!?!


ALSO SEE — Are They Hiding EVEN MORE?!


My Old Maps:
Old Maps Online (Search For Africa):
David Rumsey Map Collection (Search Africa, South Africa):
The Map House (Browse Africa, Southern Africa):
Maps Of Antiquity:
Rare Maps (Barry Lawrence Ruderman, Africa):
Wiki Maps:
Sanderus Catalogue:
Alabama Maps:
De Virga Map 1411:

JERUSALEM MAPS (In Order Of Video)
1. G.W. Colton, Southern Africa 1886:
2. A.J. Johnson, Africa 1870:
3. A.J. Johnson, Africa 1886:
4. Adolf Stieler, Das Capland 1875:
5. Adolf Stieler, Das Capland 1880:
6. George Bacon 1900:
7. George Bacon 1890:
8. Richard Andree, Deutsch Süd-Afrika 1905:
9. Richard Andree, The Times 1895:
10. Merensky, Gallica 1887:
11. Black, Adam, Charles 1854:
12. Richard Kiepert, Paul Sprigade, Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika 1893:
13. Bacon’s Large Print Map, Transvaal, Orange Free State 1900:
14. Paul Sprigade, Max Moisel, Deutsch-Südwest Afrika 1912:
15. F.A. Brockhaus Leipzig 1894:
16. Francesco C. Marmocchi 1858:

Lorenz Fries 1525:
Sebastian Münster 1545:
Johannes Honterus 1552:
Philip Lea 1692:
Andreas Cellarius, Published In 1706:
Henry William Toms 1730:

Matthias Quad, Johann Bussemacher 1600:
Pierre Du Val 1664:
Covens, Mortier 1730:
Guillaume Delisle 1745:
Map From 1747:

New York Times 1892:
Innocent Pikiyari 2001:
PBS NOVA 2000:
Richard Nicklin Hall, W.G. Neal 1904:
J. Theodore Bent 1891:
Alexander Wilmot 1894:
Carl Peters, Pages 174-183, 1904:
Augustus Henry Keane 1901:

Fact Based MALE Rights Advocacy & Research / Iceland male circumcision ban
« Last post by Mary-Jane on October 15, 2018, 11:08:03 PM »
Iceland male circumcision ban: MP behind plan 'didn’t think it was necessary to consult' Jewish and Muslim groups, amid growing anger

Judith Vonberg Monday 19 February 2018

'I don’t see it as a religious matter,' insists Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir
Religious leaders have reacted with outrage to a bill proposed by MPs in Iceland that would criminalise male circumcision.

The bill proposes a six-year prison term for anyone found guilty of “removing sexual organs in whole or in part”.

Salmann Tamimi, president of the Muslim Association of Iceland, described the proposal as an “attack on religion”.

Circumcising girls has been illegal in Iceland since 2005, but there are currently no laws to regulate the practice against boys.

Describing circumcision as a “violation” of young boys’ rights, the bill states the only time it should be considered is for “health reasons”.

Young men would be given the opportunity to decide for themselves once they reached the age of consent.

Male circumcision is one of the most common surgical procedures in the world, with one recent study estimating that around 38 per cent of men globally have undergone the procedure.

According to the same study, around half of circumcisions are carried out for religious or cultural reasons.

While the importance of male circumcision in Islam is disputed – some Muslim groups say it is obligatory, others only recommend it – it remains a major and celebrated rite wherever Islam is practised.

For Jews, circumcision carries profound religious significance and most baby boys born into Jewish families are circumcised within a week of birth.

The Bishop of Iceland, Agnes M Sigurðardóttir, has criticised the bill for criminalising the religious beliefs of Jews and Muslims, recommending instead a ban on unsafe circumcision.

In a statement to The Independent, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the Conference of European Rabbis, said he was “extremely concerned” about the proposed legislation.

“Whilst the Jewish population in Iceland is small, we cannot ignore the dangerous precedent this sets within Europe and the implications it has on Jews’ ability to carry out our religion in an open and free manner.”

A spokesperson for Milah UK, which campaigns to protect the right of the Jewish community to carry out male circumcision, described the practice as "a non-negotiable element of Jewish identity". A ban would make "sustainable Jewish life in the country impossible," he said.

There are no official figures on the number of Jews living in Iceland but estimates in 2010 by the Pew Research Center suggest they make up less than 0.1 per cent of the population (fewer than 320 people).

Mr Tamimi said he was particularly concerned about the potential impact of the bill on the small Jewish community.

“Even if there is just one Jew, it is very bad to criminalise him,” he said. “It’s very bad for Iceland to get that name, that they don’t want Jews. This is one way of saying they are not welcome.”

He warned the legislation was an attack on religion more broadly – "they are interfering in religious freedom” – and said he was frustrated that religious groups were not consulted before the legislation was proposed. “There was not a single word,” he said. “We read about it in the newspaper.”

Progressive Party MP Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir is the driving force behind the legislation.

“I didn’t think it was necessary to consult,” she told The Independent. “I don’t see it as a religious matter.”

“Jews are welcome in Iceland. But this is about child protection and children’s rights. That comes first, and before the religious rights of the adult.

“Every individual, it doesn’t matter what sex or how old… should be able to give informed consent for a procedure that is unnecessary, irreversible and can be harmful. His body, his choice.”

She said she was surprised when she learned that male circumcision was still legal, despite the ban on circumcising girls.

“The body parts are different, the procedures are different, but in both cases they can be lethal and harmful to the child,” she said.

Guidance issued in 2013 by the Nordic Ombudsmen for Children and paediatric experts concluded that “there are no health-related grounds to circumcise young boys in the Nordic countries”.

According to the paper, the procedure “violates fundamental medical-ethical principles, not least because the procedure is irreversible, painful and may cause serious complications".

In the wake of that report, doctors working for Iceland’s national health system stopped carrying out the procedure.

Ms Gunnarsdóttir argued that if just one person has complications after circumcision, “that is one too many”.

But there is significant disagreement in the global medical community regarding the potential harms or benefits of male circumcision.

While some studies say non-therapeutic circumcision can cause pain and serious long-term consequences – including infections, haemorrhages, sexual problems and psychological trauma – others suggest the health benefits outweigh the risks.

Mr Tamimi is keen to support any legislation that would make male circumcision safer. But he rejects a complete ban.

This bill “is built just on feelings without any thinking about what it means to criminalise circumcision”, he said. “We don’t accept it.”

The legislation has been debated once in the Icelandic parliament and will go through several stages of discussion and consultation before it could become law.

“This is a complicated and difficult matter,” said Ms Gunnarsdóttir. “This is a healthy, democratic way to come to a conclusion.”

General Discussion Finance / The World Debt Clock
« Last post by nicola on October 13, 2018, 04:12:32 PM »
 "Public debt is rising in both emerging markets and low income developing countries to levels not seen since the early 1980s. Forty percent of low income developing countries are now either in debt distress or at high risk of default. At the same time, corporate debt in emerging markets is also exceeding historical levels."(World bank 13/10/2018)
General Discussion Finance / The Global Findex Database 2017
« Last post by nicola on October 13, 2018, 02:31:25 PM »
The Global Findex Database 2017
Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution


In 2011 the World Bank — with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — launched the Global Findex database, the world’s most comprehensive data set on how adults save, borrow, make payments, and manage risk. Drawing on survey data collected in collaboration with Gallup, Inc., the Global Findex database covers more than 140 economies around the world. The initial survey round was followed by a second one in 2014 and by a third in 2017.

Compiled using nationally representative surveys of more than 150,000 adults age 15 and above in over 140 economies, the 2017 Global Findex database includes updated indicators on access to and use of formal and informal financial services. It has additional data on the use of financial technology (or fintech), including the use of mobile phones and the internet to conduct financial transactions.

The data reveal opportunities to expand access to financial services among people who do not have an account — the unbanked — as well as to promote
greater use of digital financial services among those who do have an account.

The Global Findex database has become a mainstay of global efforts to promote financial inclusion. In addition to being widely cited by scholars and development practitioners, Global Findex data are used to track progress toward the World Bank goal of Universal Financial Access by 2020 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

The database, the full text of the report, and the underlying country-level data for all figures — along with the questionnaire, the survey methodology, and other relevant materials — are available at

All regional and global averages presented in this publication are population weighted. Regional averages include only developing economies (low- and middle-income economies as classified by the World Bank).

The reference citation for the 2017 Global Findex data is as follows:
Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, Saniya Ansar, and Jake
Hess. 2018. The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Download the full database below!
General Discussion Finance / How a $50 smartphone is Fintech's IN to Africa
« Last post by nicola on October 13, 2018, 01:40:58 PM »
Pakistan news | The Chinese phone giant that beat Apple to Africa


Image Credit:
Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, Saniya Ansar, and Jake
Hess. 2018. The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Without Glass-Steagall we’re on a debt ‘treadmill to Armageddon’

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release Monday, 8 October 2018

For a decade too-big-to-fail (TBTF) banks and their ideological apologists have waged an all-out public relations offensive to con the public and politicians into believing that their structure had nothing to do with the 2008 banking crisis.

Specifically, they claim that the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, ending its separation of commercial deposit-taking banks used by the public, from investment banks that speculated in securities, did not lead to the chain-reaction meltdown of the global financial system triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.

This lie was smashed at a 26 September event at the USA’s National Press Club in Washington, DC, when five genuine experts engaged in a public post-mortem of the crisis to mark its 10th anniversary. In their discussion, law professor Arthur Wilmarth proved conclusively that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall separation, which turned deposits into fuel for wild speculation, was the major factor in the crash.

This event is essential viewing by anyone in the world who is concerned about their financial future: not just in the United States, but in the UK, Australia, Europe, Japan—everywhere Glass-Steagall has been debated, but the banks have used their corrupt power over politics to block any efforts to break them up again.


 “Ten years after Lehman Brothers: 5 economic experts describe what hasn’t changed, what is worse … and how it could all happen again”.

Rewriting history

The banks have gone to greats lengths to rewrite history following the crash, to serve their agenda of keeping their claws in deposits. That’s not surprising—public relations is all about selling lies. What’s astounding is that they have been believed. In Michael Lewis’s book The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, contrarian investor Steve Eisman expressed his disgust that Wall Street got to control the policy response to the crash. “I can understand why Goldman Sachs would want to be included in the conversation about what to do about Wall Street”, he said. “What I can’t understand is why anyone would listen to them.” They did listen, and the big lie they fell for is that Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it.

The financial media, chock full of bank apologists, was crucial to spreading this illusion. Despite its pre-crisis reporting having zero credibility, as it not only failed to see the crisis but cheered the behaviour that caused it, the US channel CNBC led the propaganda campaign to block the restoration of Glass-Steagall. Celebrity anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin, who wrote the glossed-over book and movie account of the crash which glorified the participants, Too Big To Fail, and is a co-creator of the Wall Street TV series “Billions”, has been especially strident in denying any connection between the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the crisis, but he has had to rely on patently false claims in doing so.

The banks’ version of events has influenced gullible politicians all over the world. In Australia, Liberal Party MPs have sent letters to constituents drafted by the Treasurer’s office which have claimed that “the implementation of Glass-Steagall laws would not have prevented the Global Financial Crisis and the collapse of major banks in the USA. The GFC was primarily caused by the risky lending practices and inadequate capital levels of banks in the United States.”

‘Glass-Steagall was right’

The five participants in the Washington event are genuine experts, not charlatans who are in fact complicit in the failed system, like most so-called financial experts today.

Bart Naylor and Robert Kuttner were Congressional staffers in the 1980s who witnessed the systematic deregulation of the financial system which led to the crash, and campaign for financial reform that puts “Wall Street back in its box”. Nomi Prins is a former Wall Street and City of London investment bank executive who quit in the early 2000s over her disgust at financial practices, predicting derivatives trading would cause a crash, and now campaigns for Glass-Steagall all over the world. Dr Marcus Stanley is an economist and policy director at Americans for Financial Reform who is fighting to reform the banking system before another crash. And financial law expert Arthur Wilmarth is a Professor at the George Washington University Law School.

Professor Wilmarth compared the crash of 2008 to that of 1929, and proved that Glass-Steagall was the major factor in the 2008 crash, because its repeal allowed the banks to dive into the same speculation, fuelled with customer deposits, that caused the 1929 crash before Glass-Steagall was enacted. “I think we need to look back at history, and say: Glass-Steagall was right, and we paid a big price when we got rid of it”, Professor Wilmarth concluded.

When challenged on the bankers’ argument that restoring Glass-Steagall would restrict credit—the same argument that the Morrison government is using against structural separation for Australia’s banks—Wilmarth answered: “I think over the long term Glass-Steagall would probably lead to less credit, which I think would be a good thing. Who thinks we have too little credit now, right? … Global credit [a.k.a. debt] went from US$84 trillion in 2000, to $173 trillion in 2008, to $250 trillion today, so we’re on a treadmill to Armageddon again.”

He emphasised that Glass-Steagall’s capacity for restraining credit is a virtue, not a vice. This is because Glass-Steagall restrains the reckless speculation that creates credit for the unproductive financial gambling that builds up unpayable debt, of the type that is swamping the world today; but it boosts the availability of credit for the real economy by keeping deposits separated from speculation.

For too long bankers and their political stooges have got away with pretending that TBTF “universal” banks, which are conglomerates of all kinds of financial services, are normal and necessary. They are not. They are a financial mutation that exposes deposits to the toxic chemical waste of financial speculation. Watch this video, share it widely, and join the fight to put the banks back in their box.


 “Ten years after Lehman Brothers: 5 economic experts describe what hasn’t changed, what is worse … and how it could all happen again”.

What you can do

    Share this video widely. Especially share Professor Wilmarth’s contribution, which you can do using this link, which is queued to when he starts speaking:

    Share it with your federal MP, especially if you have corresponded with them on Glass-Steagall, but even if you haven’t. Forward the link or this release to their office with the message that the government claims that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the crash, but this discussion proves that claim to be false.

    Demand your MP support the Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018 that Bob Katter introduced into Parliament on 25 June, so that Australia can have a Glass-Steagall banking separation which protects deposits and makes banking normal again.

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432

‘Bail-in’: They plan to steal your personal bank deposits and pensions!

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release Tuesday, 22 March 2016

The world is now hurtling towards a far worse financial collapse than even the crash of 2008. Plunging markets in bonds, bank stocks, and commodities throughout the trans-Atlantic sector of the world economy (and those attached to it, including Australia and New Zealand), have brought countless authoritative warnings of the next, looming megacrash, while the actions of the transnational financial authorities demonstrate fast-growing desperation on their part. Foremost among those actions is “bail-in”, the asset-confiscation model that got its test run in Cyprus in 2013.

The confiscation of depositors’ funds through “bail-in”, for which the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and its Financial Stability Board (FSB) had sought legislative approval in all major nations,[1] is now being imposed come hell or high water, notably in Australia by dictatorial decree!

In 2008, the international financial oligarchy, centred on the British Crown, the City of London, and Wall Street, directed terrified governments to spend tens of trillions in public funds to “bail out” so-called Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks, whose quadrillions of dollars in speculation had caused the crisis in the first place. In the years since, those banks have not stopped their unbridled speculation, nor their drug money-laundering, terror-financing, tax evasion and other criminality; the tens of billions of dollars in fines incurred for such activity are simply written off as a cost of doing business.

And now, bailouts are not enough. While hiding behind sophistry like declarations of a desire to avoid 2008-style taxpayer bailouts, they plan, as the present crisis hits full-force, to simply seize the private bank deposits of ordinary citizens like yourself—“bail-in”, as opposed to “bail-out”.

The rationale for bail-in goes like this. When a bank fails because its assets (such as mortgage loans) are not enough to cover its liabilities, rather than its being declared bankrupt or bailed out with taxpayer money, the bank will be kept open for business by the intervention of a government-appointed bail-in authority, which takes over the bank and acts to reduce its liabilities. The authority will write down (cancel) some of the value of the bank’s debt. Creditors, such as holders of the bank’s bonds, may have those bonds converted into equity (shares) in the bank. Not only bondholders, but also depositors are classified as “unsecured creditors”. Thus, to reduce the bank’s liabilities the bail-in authority can vaporise the savings of its customers and assets of its bondholders, compensating them with worthless shares in the “resolved” institution.[2]

On 1 January 2016 new bail-in regulations with the force of law took effect throughout the European Union. The EU’s Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) allows TBTF banks to seize personal bank deposits. The UK, whose Bank of England (BoE) was the BRRD’s principal author, had put the new law fully into effect already on 1 January 2015.[3]

Attempts to pass bail-in legislation in Australia, during 2013-2015, were defeated by the Citizens Electoral Council’s mass mobilisation. But now, bail-in has been simply declared, fascist-style, to be in effect as of early this year.[4] Although none of the 30 megabanks classified by the BIS as Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions (GSIFI) is Australian, each of Australia’s Big Four banks ranks among the top 50 banks worldwide. Therefore Australia’s financial system as a whole is ranked by the IMF as “systemically important”, meaning that a banking crash in Australia could bring down the entire Anglo-American system.

Bail-in devastated the nation of Cyprus in 2013, an experiment which the president of the Eurogroup of European finance ministers, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, proclaimed to be the “template” for the entire EU. Since then it has been applied to a lesser, but still disastrous, effect in Portugal, Spain and Italy.[5]

In reality, bail-in cannot save the TBTF banks: the amount of depositors’ funds available to be seized is so small by comparison to the amount of speculative debt held by the banks, that governments will be forced once again to cough up untold trillions in “bail-out”, on top of “bail-in”. In addition, the fact that bail-in is now on the books has so terrified investors about being “bailed in” in the future, that they have stopped buying bonds; the collapse of bond markets was a major factor in the drastic 10 March decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) to pump money into the big banks through zero and negative interest rates and an increase of “quantitative easing” (QE)—the ECB’s own bond purchases—by one-third, to €80 billion per month, a rate of money-pumping greater than the US Federal Reserve System’s QE at the height of its post-2008 interventions.

But bail-in is not merely, or even mainly, a “financial” trick. Its design is political. The real agenda behind bail-in is the intention of the Crown/City of London/Wall Street cabal to enact fascist police-state regimes and reduce the population throughout the Western world, even as they gun for a military showdown with Russia and China, to loot and subdue the BRICS[6] nations before their own trans-Atlantic system collapses.

Decisive action to eliminate these genocidal policies of bail-out and bail-in is needed now, before the present crisis hits full-force. The documentation accessible via the links below will arm you with what you need to know, in order to force your government to rein in these murderous TBTF banks and launch full-scale national credit-creation for an agro-industrial recovery. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt accomplished that in the United States in the 1930s, using principles that are universally applicable.

Bail-in: derivatives come first

Champions of bail-in: Goldman Sachs, the Bank of England and the BIS

What about my deposit guarantee?

Behind bail-in: eugenics and genocide

The Royal policy of eugenics

Where does Queen Elizabeth stand on bail-in?

Glass-Steagall, national credit, and a new world economic order

To access all sections in one file, click here: for html; for pdf

Glass-Steagall, national credit, and a new world economic order

In the first 100 days of his Presidency, Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 enacted a series of measures to turn the US economy around and end the Great Depression, foremost among which was the Glass-Steagall Act. It mandated a total separation of all commercial banking from the speculative investment banking that had caused the crash. This law put the Wall Street predators on a leash, enabling Roosevelt to mobilise enormous quantities of public credit, through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), for investment in the USA’s physical economic recovery.[7]

Near the end of World War II, the Allied nations met in the town of Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to construct a stable international monetary system to facilitate economic recovery from the war and the rise of sovereign nation-states, freed from the shackles of what FDR had called the “economic royalists” of Wall Street, and from the system of British and other colonialisms built upon looting subject populations. A cornerstone of the “Bretton Woods system” was the establishment of fixed exchange rates, to allow for stable international trade in a setting of reliable economic growth, while the International Monetary Fund and World Bank would assist nations in achieving prosperity and national sovereignty. But from almost the day the Bretton Woods agreements were signed in 1944, London and Wall Street set out to subvert them, by taking over the World Bank and IMF and forcing “conditionalities” (looting) down the throats of subject nations and crusading to end fixed exchange rates, so as to open up all currencies to unlimited speculation. That did happen on 15 August 1971, when, under pressure from Wall Street and London, US President Richard Nixon allowed the US dollar—the main world currency—to float against others. Today, derivatives (gambling bets) based on interest rate changes and rates of foreign exchange are the cornerstones of the quadrillion or more dollars in speculation internationally.

At the direction of London and Wall Street, further deregulatory measures followed the end of Bretton Woods, ushering in a series of financial shocks and crises of which the present one is only the most recent. These included the US Savings and Loans collapses of the 1970s, the 1986 Big Bang in the City of London, the 1987 Wall Street crash, and the junk bond crises tied to the rash of leveraged buy-outs in the 1980s. But the dam really broke when US President Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, which is what allowed the explosive growth of derivatives speculation and the creation of the TBTF banks.

What must be done now is to 1) re-enact Glass-Steagall banking separation in all countries;[8] 2) cancel all derivatives, as worthless gambling debts; 3) enact enabling legislation for national credit-creation, because if trillions can be created by the BoE, the US Fed, et al. to bail out the TBTF banks, then clearly trillions can be created to revive the actual physical economy; and 4) join the BRICS nations to create a new, just world economic order.[9]

What you can do:

    Call your MP to demand that he or she act with full force to secure the passage of Glass-Steagall legislation to separate speculative investment banking from government-protected normal commercial banks serving the real economy, thus wiping out the TBTF banks and their plot for bail-in now, before the next crash.
    Under pressure from an aroused citizenry, that is entirely possible, given that more and more prominent figures—even leading bankers who championed the repeal of Glass-Steagall two decades ago—have realised what a disaster that has been and are calling for its reinstatement. A Glass-Steagall amendment to the UK’s Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill 2013 failed to pass the House of Commons that year by 49 votes, and missed passage in the House of Lords by only nine.
    Demand that your MP act to establish the power of sovereign national credit-creation for the common good, as in the original Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the CEC’s ready-to-enact draft legislation for an Australian National Bank, or UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s call for “People’s Quantitative Easing”—masses of new government credit to be directed into great infrastructure projects, manufacturing, agriculture, health care and other areas vital to the general welfare of the population.
    Contact Buckingham Palace and demand to know where the Queen stands on bail-in.
    Telephone: (+44) (0)20 7930 4832.

Let us know the responses!

Notes and references

    “‘Bail-In’—the British Crown’s Plot for Global Genocide”, The New Citizen, Aug./Sept./Oct./ 2013.

    “Bail-in” regulations, designed by the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements, define a wide range of confiscatory actions. In order to build buffers against losses from their huge speculative activities, banks are required to sell “bail-in bonds”, which carry the provision that they will be written down and/or converted to shares in a crisis, effectively becoming worthless. These are typically sold to large and presumably “knowledgeable” investors such as insurance and pension/superannuation funds, but sometimes, as in as Italy and Australia, they are sold directly to unsuspecting individual savers and investors as inherently safe. One way or the other, whether through simple stealing of individual bank accounts or large-scale looting of superannuation funds, the architects of bail-in emphasise that individuals will be forced to pay. At a 5 Nov. 2014 forum in Washington DC on the 2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection (“Dodd-Frank”) Act, which enshrined bail-in in the USA, former Bank of England Deputy Governor Sir Paul Tucker, one of the architects of bail-in, declared that for a permanent bail-in system to work, the burden of keeping the banks from failing must fall on households, through their superannuation and insurance funds which hold bail-in securities and liabilities. “You absolutely can’t allow banks and shadow banks to hold it”, Tucker insisted. “So that leaves you with insurance companies, pension [superannuation] funds, mutual funds, etc. And when I’ve said that in other groups, people have said, ‘My goodness, it’s households!’ … Well, there are only households … Do you want all the risk to fall back on Wall Street firms?” (Emphasis added.)

    EU member countries were allowed to delay implementation of the full bail-in provisions of the BRRD from 1 Jan. 2015 to 1 Jan. 2016. But a UK Treasury notice of 12 Dec. 2014, reflecting awareness that the global financial crash could resume sooner rather than later, emphasised, “The BRRD will strengthen the EU financial system and make it less vulnerable to shocks and contagion. As such, the government strongly supports it and is committed to fully transposing the Directive by 1 Jan. 2015. The government does not intend to take advantage of the option of delaying the application of the bail-in provisions until 2016.”

    Christopher Joye, “Ensuring the major banks are not too big to fail”, Australian Financial Review, 20 Dec. 2015, summarises the Australian bank regulator APRA’s assertion that even without special bail-in legislation it already has bail-in powers under existing Australian law. Following the Cyprus bank bail-in of March 2013, a little-noticed Financial Stability Board report stated that bail-in legislation was “in train in Australia”. The Citizens Electoral Council launched a nation-wide mobilisation to expose and stop this legislation, culminating in a December 2013 full-page advertisement in the national daily newspaper The Australian, and including publication of the CEC pamphlet Glass-Steagall Now! Thousands of Australians wrote to politicians, demanding that any plans to legislate bail-in be dumped. By exposing this hitherto secret intention, the CEC made it politically impossible for the Australian parliament to legislate bail-in, and derailed plans to finalise a global bail-in regime at the Brisbane G20 in Nov. 2014. Having failed to achieve the necessary legislation by democratic means, APRA is acting as the local arm of the supranational, dictatorial BIS that it is, by asserting that it has bail-in powers already.

    “Only Glass-Steagall bank separation can stop deadly bail-in”, Australian Alert Service, 13 Jan. 2016, p. 3.

    “British push for end of ‘BRICS fantasy’” and “US war faction pushes Asia into chaos”, Australian Alert Service, 16 Mar. 2016, report the latest attacks on BRICS. Cooperation among Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the BRICS group, is the seed crystal of a new world monetary and economic system. The trans-Atlantic financial powers centred in the City of London and Wall Street view the rise of BRICS and its promotion of national sovereignty and industrial progress as a threat to their global dominance, and are determined to break up the alliance.

    Richard Freeman, “How Roosevelt’s RFC Revived Economic Growth, 1933-45”, EIR, 17 Mar. 2006.

Glass-Steagall Now!, CEC pamphlet, 2014, compiles calls for Glass-Steagall legislation from around the world, as well as the status of such legislation in many countries as of January 2014. Support has grown since then. The magazine excerpts the original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which opens: “An Act to provide for the safer and more effective use of the assets of banks, to regulate interbank control, to prevent the undue diversion of funds into speculative operations, and for other purposes…” It includes the full text of The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act now pending before the US Congress, as well as a summary of the CEC’s national banking legislation, “The Commonwealth National Credit Bank Bill”, of which the full text is here.

    The proceedings of the March 2015 CEC International Conference “The World Land-Bridge: Peace on Earth, Good Will towards All Men”, set forth the BRICS process and the potential for other nations to cooperate with it.

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10