POI Issue One

8/13/2019 POI Issue One

1/12

Macquarie University Debating Society Magazine

February, 2012

P

O

I

Why We Don't Trust Science (Or Why Ignorance IsBlissfully Easy)

Genocide Denial: The Art Of Ignoring BlatantFacts

Spotlight: The International Criminal Court

Country Profile: Turkey

Intervening in Syria

AnwarAmro/AgenceFrance-Presse

GettyImages


2/12

The Macquarie University Debating Society (or affectionately known as MUDS) isMacquarie University's resident debating society. Every single day since

MUDS formation in the late 1960s, MUDS members have been using the skills of

persuasion, argumentation and reasoning for the art of debating. Forty yearslater, little has changed. Were still debating weekly, travelling nationally and in-ternationally to argue in foreign places, from Canberra to Berlin. Suffice to say,

MUDS is a rather interesting place to be. Not only can you enjoy the chance to ar-gue but see the world through participating in international tournaments.

To join in on the action, you dont need to know every intricacy of debating. Infact many of our members had never debated before joining MUDS. However, due

to MUDS open, inclusive and friendly nature all of our members have come tocherish the chance to debate at any given opportunity regardless of their prior

experience.

Disclaimer: The following perspective do not necessarily reflect the views of Macquarie University or of

any sponsors. They are either the opinions of the individual members or represent a perspective within

the community of the Macquarie University Debating Society and are intended only to educate and

stimulate discourse.

What is MUDS?

Thanks to our contributors

Anna Kosmynina

Ben Roe

Lachlan Umbers

Mark Slaven

Stephanie Fehon

Page 2

POI

If you have any queries or

feedback, please contact

[email protected]


3/12

/pnt/ v /n frme n/

also known as a P.O.I.

A question posed to the debator in British Parliamentary Debating that ideally

forces the individual to further justify and explain their position. Can also chal-

lenge this position by highlighting an alternative perspective.

Whats inside:

Point of Information

Rejecting

expertise has

become a

political strategy

in itself

Page 4

Page 3

POI

Features

Why we dont trust science

Genocide DenialMilitary Intervention: Syria

Country Profile: Turkey

RegularSpotlight

For/Against

Tournaments

Soapbox

4

56

9

7

8

10

11


4/12

Science can be pretty scary, even more-so when it

touches controversial and complex issues such as clon-ing, genetic modification and especially climate change.

Just like any field of expertise, the experts communicateknowledge to the public and make recommendations to

politicians, hoping to favourably influence upcoming pol-

icy and actions. In contrast to fields like economics or

urban planning, scientific progress and conceptualchanges attract a higher level of public scrutiny and re-

sistance, particularly in the context of the climate debate.

Although there is almost absolute consensus on anthro-pogenic climate change among scientists, over halfAmericans think there is a lot of disagreement in the

scientific community and only one third think that climate

changes main agent is man.

The first cause of misinformation is the actions of emis-

sions-heavy industries in whose best interests it is thatwe continue our demand for fossil fuels and manufac-

tured goods. These industries employ so many peopleand hold so much wealth that they are able to politically

influence public perception of the debate. Either throughthe promise of donations to parties or through the indi-

rect or direct threat of withdrawal of votes, the industrieshelp ensure that it becomes in a partys best interests to

uphold pro-emissions policies to guarantee continued

support. Additionally, these industries choose to influ-ence public opinion through commissioning research and

think tanks which will hopefully yield the right result.

While this shows a longer-term, strategic vision, the prob-

lem with this approach is that all credible science is peer-reviewed, thus removing bias, and there is really only one

true explanation, however complex. In practice this

means that although these industries may target promis-

ing questions, what the studies uncover will always fit inwith the larger, more cohesive picture of climate change

or will be added to the this doesnt make sense now but

will later pile. Due to the present body of evidence, if

new research challenges it, it only serves to remove apiece of the climate puzzle instead of collapsing a house

of cards.

Secondly, rejecting expertise has become a politicalstrategy in itself. In recent years experts have to some

degree been branded as elitists who claim to know betterthan the average citizen. This isnt a problem unless

when what the experts suggest is at odds with what we

hold as traditional cultural values, and science is the per-

fect example of this evolution, genetic modification andclimate change all fall into this category. This means that

regardless of the evidence, when a candidate publicly op-poses the expansion of science or questions its validity, he

aligns himself as one of the people, i.e. a non-expert, and

affirms the long-standing cultural values of his electorate.

Denial becomes even more attractive when the truth in-volves non-immediate, non-visible, impersonal risk and

complex causality and the solution involves some degreeof immediate personal sacrifice for example, climate

change and the carbon tax.

Finally, fuelled by the efforts of emissions-heavy industryand politicians, the reporting of the debate in the media

also contributes to misconceptions. In an effort to providenews that is indeed new, while creating the illusion of bal-

ance through presenting equal voice to unequal sides of theissue, the media have largely skewed the perceptions of the

level of consensus among scientists. By allowing climatedeniers the same platforms that real scientists are af-

forded, deniers views inadvertently become legitimised and

normalised to the same degree that real science is.

Due to the complex nature of scientific questions, accep-

tance of findings and shifts in paradigms by the public rely

mostly on the way these things are communicated and the

perceived degree of consensus among scientists. Although

the agents of this forming public opinion were explored in

the context of science and specifically climate change, the

ideas of political influence, political motivation and solidar-

ity, and normalisation though exposure hold true for many

issues in Debaterland.

Why We Don't Trust Science

(Or Why Ignorance Is Blissfully Easy)

Page 4

POI

How do elements of influence, motivation,

solidarity and normalisation help drive the

widening gap between scientific and popular

climate change consensus?

Anna Kosmynina


5/12

Page 5

POI

In November 2005 in Austria, the British historian David

Irving was sentenced to three years imprisonment, whichwas later shortened to one year with a life-long travel ban

to Austria. This charge followed an earlier libel case in Eng-land, which cost Irving an estimated 3 million. His crime?

Consistently and unapologetically putting forward the casethat historians had grossly inflated the number of Jews

killed by the Nazi regime.

In the title of her book that was the centre of the libelcase, Deborah Lipstadt described Holocaust denial as a

growing assault on truth and memory. This holds truefor any denial of an event that has brought severe trauma

to a group of people. It is an insult to deny atrocities, as in

doing so you deny the legitimacy of the loss and thus im-pede a peoples ability to mourn. It is for this reason thatHolocaust denial is an illegal act in seventeen na-

tions. These nations include those most closely associ-

ated with the Nazi regime.

More recently, France has legislated to expand the num-

ber of genocides that must be recognised by law. Themass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915 was

controversially included, which has led to death threatsbeing made towards the co-sponsor of the bill,Valrie

Boyer. The Turkish Government responded by imposing

sanctions on France and the prime minister branded the

law as xenophobic.

History can be an incredibly polarising force. Sir GeorgeClark, in his introduction to the second Cambridge Modern

History, commented that there is not objective historical

truth. Most modern historians agree that whenever his-

tory is written, the historian interprets the facts to producetheir interpretation of the past. However, whilst academ-

ics might agree that they can never agree, the public andthe governments that represent them do not accept this

uncertainty. In the case of genocide denial, there are mor-ally justifiable reasons for the state to determine one

correct interpretation of the facts. In the vast majority of

cases, however, an individuals right to free speech isseen as more important. To understand how the law inter-sects with controversial history, it is useful to examine the

libel case Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt.

Irving began proceedings following Lipstadts description

of him as a pseudo-historian who actively misrepresented

the past to further an anti-Semitic agenda. The case oc-curred in Britain, thus there was no charge of Holocaust

denial to be brought to Irving. Instead, the validity of Ir-vings complaints was tested by a historiographical analy-

sis of his work. The prominent historian Richard Evans

traced through Irvings footnotes in order to identify whether

his claims of exaggeration had any grounds. As there isconsistent and well-documented evidence of the extent of

the genocide conducted by the Nazi party, and as Irving

based his claims on truncated or misinterpreted sources, it

was concluded that there were sufficient grounds for Lip-stadts comments. The case did not automatically fail due

to the offensiveness of Irvings argument, but rather on the

unreliability of the historians most fundamental tools in

writing history: the sources.

History cannot automatically be discounted as inaccurate

because its conclusions do not suit the reader. Alternative

views have been crucial in ensuring that a more inclusive

and accurate understanding exists, such as the develop-

ment of post-colonial and feminist histories. The states

role in selecting which version of history should prevail is

also problematic. States have vested interests in portrayingthe past in a favourable light. There is a strong case for

generally keeping historical writing and governments sepa-

rate, but genocide causes unparalleled trauma to a group of

people. Its subsequent denial is so distressing that the

state must in these circumstances must ensure that it is an

undeniable part of history, and the suffering of a people

cannot be diminished.

Genocide Denial: The Art Of Ignoring Blatant Facts

Who will act when historians misrepresent the past

Stephanie Fehon

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/mem

oirs/trial.html

David Irving with Austrian police as they remove his handcuffs


6/12

Page 6

POI

There is an overwhelming need to intervene in Syria.

Over 6, 000 civilians have been killed. The Assad regimeis widely despised and is in all respects illegitimate. All

dissent is repressed and thousands of opposition figuresare imprisoned. The regime stays in power by concentrat-

ing wealth and power in the hands of the minority Alawitegroup from which the Assad family is drawn and, despite

widespread protests, by control of the military, thestrongest units of which are well-disciplined and com-

manded by loyal Alawite officers. The regime relies heav-ily upon support from Iran with whom it is closely aligned.

China, Russia, Iraq and Irans refusal to enforce sanc-

tions against the regime have rendered them largely inef-

fective. As such, change without outside intervention is

impossible.

NATO should therefore assemble a large ground force to

invade Syria. The Syrian military has proven loyal, but is

ill-equipped and would almost certainly be defeated eas-

ily. The intervention should be made easier both by thefact that the Free Syrian Army (the most cohesive and

well-armed of the opposition groups in Syria, comprisingdefected soldiers) has openly and repeatedly called for

Western intervention, and by the recent rebel capture ofthe town of Douma which could serve as a base of opera-

tions. Assad should be removed from power and a gov-ernment of national unity balancing Sunni, Shi-ite and

Christian interests should be installed.

Foreign intervention is the last reasonable resort avail-

able in Syria. Sanctions have failed to work because Syria

is still able to trade with Iran, Russia and China. This situa-tion is unlikely to change given that Syria is crucial to

Irans strategic interests and that Russia and China have

every interest in not drawing attention to the illegitimacy of

governments similar to their own. A no-fly zone is insuffi-cient. Syrian anti-air is modern and sophisticated. The

combat required is urban combat for which air forces areill-equipped. Removing Assad or even a number of mem-

bers of his family would not redress that imbalance offorce in favour of the Syrian government. It would, how-

ever, likely lead to a military takeover as the military seekto preserve their privileged position. This is made all the

more likely by the fact that the more powerful parts of themilitary are commanded by Alawite who, as a minority(only 12% of the population are Alawite Shi-ites, over 70%

are Sunni) have an interest in clinging to power.

There are at least three reasons why the West has a duty

to intervene. There is an obvious imperative for change inSyria, given the appalling violence and clearly illegitimate

government. All human lives have an equal value and de-serve equal rights. Its therefore obviously wrong when

those rights are denied. Where others are in extreme dis-tress and, those who could intervene with relatively little

cost to themselves have an obvious moral duty to do so.Finally, until recently, the West permitted trade with the

Syria and permitted the government to borrow on behalf of

its population. Both positions foreseeably entrenched the

regime and allowed them to continue their illegitimate andviolent rule. The West therefore has a duty assist in their

removal.

Military Intervention in Syria

Anwar

Amro/AgenceFrance-Presse

Gett

yImages


7/12

Page 7

POI

Such an intervention is likely to be successful, as NATOs

forces are far superior to Syrias and because they would inter-

vene with necessary force, due to a desire to curb Irans re-

gional influence.

The benefits to Syrias population are obvious. A murderous

regime will have been replaced by a government that better

reflects the preferences of the majority. Hopefully, this will be

a democracy, but even if another dictatorship was to emerge,it is overwhelmingly likely to be a Sunni dictatorship, which

would at least be a government far more likely to treat theirpopulation well than the Alawite minority government. In-

creased stability and decreased corruption aids governmentservice delivery, international confidence (thus raising the like-

lihood of foreign direct investment) and living standards.

Intervention would also be good for the region by breaking up

Irans pernicious influence. Ideologically and politically, Syria

and Iran are both Shia governments in a hostile region, the

Iranian government views Syria as central to its prestige and

influence in the region, together with the fictitious no-

tion of a Muslim coalition with itself and Syria. As Syrian

borders Lebanon and Israel, Iranian arms donated to

Hezbollah and Hamas must travel through Syria. Suc-cessful Western action in Syria would be a serious blow

to Iranian interests in the region. Its likely that a Sunni

government would come to power in Syria following the

collapse of the Assad regime. Such a government wouldrefuse to engage in Irans radically pro -Shi-ite foreign

policy. Thats good for Israel, good for Lebanon and badfor Irans influence in the region. This is particularly im-

portant in the context of increasing Iranian influence inIraq which, in turn, is leading to increased tensions with

the Gulf states (especially Saudi Arabia). It also pre-

vents Iran giving the capacity to project power to Is-raels borders which both avoids a possible threat to

Israel, and helps to minimise (so far as is possible) ten-sions between Israel and Iran; critical given that Israel

has nuclear weapons and traditionally adopts an ex-

tremely aggressive strategic posture.

Spotlight: the ICC

Anyone, regardless of nationality, can be prosecuted by the

ICC, even if their nation hasn't ratified the Rome Statute,so long as there is a Security Council resolution to that

effect (as was the case with Gaddafi). Individuals may also

be referred to the court by nations party to the Statuteor

by the discretion of the Prosecutor.

The ICC has a supplementary jurisdiction, in that it will only

hear cases if a state refuses to try an individual that is be-lieved to have committed war crimes, crimes against hu-

manity or genocide, or does so in a wholly inadequatemanner.

The ICC has no way of enforcing their jurisdiction, which

means that an individual may only be handed over if the

nation they are currently located in wills it, or if they per-sonally volunteer to appear (which around half a dozen

have chosen to do).

The ICC has proven to be greatly ineffective since its incep-

tion a decade ago, with no successful prosecutions, fouracquittals, two deaths before capture and as many fugi-

tives as people held in remand.

The US, which is in staunch opposition to the Rome Stat-

ute, passed the Invade the Hague Act in 2002, which al-

lows the use of force (including military intervention) to

free any US citizens from the demonic grasp of interna-tional criminal courts, such as the ICC.

Created by the Rome Statute in

2002, the International Criminal

Court is a body that is intended to

be completely separate from the

UN (and for the most part is) with

many interesting properties.

Mark Slaven

Five things you should know about the International Criminal Court

ICCCPhttp://www.i

ccnow.o

rg/?mod=court

Lachlan Umbers


8/12

Page 8

POI

FOR

The war on drugs has failed with drug intake on the

rise, and the genesis of new synthetic drugs causing

progressively more health problems. This govern-

ment proposes to introduce all drugs in a controlled

release format similar to that of alcohol distribution:

all retailers must have licenses, all drugs must be

subject to quality control, all clerks must be edu-cated on the provision of each individual drug their

shop sells and all tax revenue from selling drugs

must go into rehabilitative facilities. Moreover, drug

dealing outside of this regulated chain will remain

illegal. This has the dual effect of limiting the health

impacts on those who take the drugs, whilst also

driving down the costs of drugs to annihilate the

black market. This is principally justifiable, as indi-

viduals should have the ability to choose what they

do so long as they dont hurt others, and it is clear

that taking drugs in the comfort of ones own homeor in a coffee shop, much like the consumption of

alcohol, is largely their own business.

There are many benefits to this. First, as the crea-

tion of the drugs will be regulated and all black mar-

ket drugs will be shunned from the market, the

chance of introducing harmful chemicals found in

backyard labs that cause will be significantly dimin-

ished. Second, legalisation has historically lead to

lower rates of drug use, which can be seen in the

Netherlands where less people take drugs regularly

than in other liberal democracies like the UK andUS, which means there will be less chance of addic-

tion (the only real harm of taking drugs) in the long

run. Finally, there will be a greater and more liberal

discourse on the effects that drug abuse can have,

as individuals will be exposed to clerks who have a

greater knowledge base regarding certain drugs

than the shady bloke chilling behind the dumpster.

For/Against

This house would legalise all drugs

AGAINST

Drug use is a serious problem in todays society, but

the correct way to combat this problem is not through

the legitimization of drug use. We should stop lock-

ing drug addicts in jail and hoping that this will solve

societys problems, and instead focus attentions on

rehabilitation and education.

There are numerous harms that come with the legali-

zation of drugs. Firstly, drugs become more accessi-

ble. This enables individuals to experiment with drugs

more easily, and can lead to an increased amount of

addictions, Secondly, through providing an environ-

ment in which the government permits drug con-

sumption because of minimized harm, there will be a

wide spread belief that there are safe ways to con-

sume drugs, if they are taken in moderation. Hard

drugs can never be taken safely. No matter what

regulations are put in place, a single dose of heroin

will always be dangerous and pose a serious threat to

the individuals health.

These harms exist under the model of legalization,

but not through decriminalisation. We should stop

punishing those who consume drugs, but ensure that

any individual who sells drugs or enables their selling

is punished. There is no way of alleviating the harms.


9/12

Page 9

POI

Established in 1923 by a revolutionary called Ataturk who

didnt feel the Allies deserved to split the former Ottoman

Empire into various protectorates, Turkey is one of the few

established secular democratic states with a predominantlyMoslem populace (96.1%) in the world. The only other two

are Indonesia and, surprisingly, Senegal. None, however,are particularly stable.

On the point of stability, the military has staged four coupsover the years (1960, 1971, 1980 and 1997). In 1960 and

1980, the military took control in order to stem political

violence, but held power for less than three years in bothinstances before handing governmental power back to elec-

tions. In 1971, they ousted the government and replaced itwith technocrats in order to stimulate the economy and in1997 performed a postmodern coup by merely threaten-

ing to intervene, prompting the Prime Minister to dissolvehis government and step down, this time because they did-

nt like the way he had blurred the line between church and

state (e.g. not enforcing the ban on headscarves).

One of the key symbols of secularism in Turkey has beenthe headscarf, which was banned in the Constitution since

the inception of the nation in 1924 (compare to the ban the

burqa debate). This has been reversed in a recent referen-dum, which now allows women to wear headscarves in pub-

lic places.

Presently, Turkey is a mean, green relatively powerful mili-tary machine, having the second strongest military force in

the Middle East (besides Israel), and the second largestarmy in NATO (trailing behind America). It houses 90 nu-

clear bombs, requires strict conscription of all male citizens

and is at the time of writing one of the most likely actors

to aid the rebels in neighbouring Syria.

Turks are held responsible for the genocide of 1.5 millionArmenian people during the First World War, which they

vehemently deny (an act which France has recently ren-dered illegal, similar to Holocaust denial). Although illumi-

nating facts about the genocide is not expressly prohibited,

Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which criminilisesinsulting Turkishness, is often used to silence reporters

and historians who raise the issue.

Furthermore to this point, there are reportedly (excuse the

pun) more journalists imprisoned in Turkey than any othercountry in the world, despite Article 26 of their Constitutionguaranteeing freedom of expression.

Despite a heavy downturn in the GFC where the economy

contracted by nearly 5% in 2009 as a majority of exportmarkets collapsed, Turkey recovered exceptionally well,

posting a growth of nearly 9% in 2010 and another 7.8% in

2011. This is attributed to a well-regulated finance industryand the fact that no banks required a bailout. Turkey is the

17thlargest economy in the world, and a member of the

G20.Regardless, Turkish debt still makes up 40% of their GDP,

unemployment lingers around 10% and it would appear thatalthough the nation is a veritable highway for oil and gas

(there are pipelines left, right and centre), there are veryfew reserves in its own borders. But, unlike most struggling

governments, at least it has a growing economy that mightbe able to fill the whole in the vague future.

Country Profile:Turkey

Our favourite medium sized, transcontinental country bordering politically andeconomically stable countries like Greece, Syria and Iraq.

asic Facts

Population

79 750 000

Government

Republican Parliamentary

Democracy

GDP growth

+7.8 (2011)

http://www.ephesustours.org/images

/map_turkey.jpg

Mark Slaven


10/12

Page 10

POI

Tournaments

When semester two ended last year, MUDS

were just getting started. Since then, we have

debated at local tournaments hosted by Uni-

versity of New South Wales, Sydney University

and, of course, the Commonwealth Cup held

at Macquarie University.

Most importantly, over the new year 8 MUDS

members travelled to the Philippines to rep-

resent Macquarie at the De La Salle World

Universities Debating Championships

(WUDC). Here, they debated alongside other

institutions such as Oxford University and

Harvard. Over eight days, our contingent de-

bated, adjudicated and had an amazing time

at the various parties and functions heldevery night.

Notable achievements

Macquarie University was ranked 39th of all

institutions attending WUDC

Macquarie A ranked 45th in the world on 18

points (the same as some breaking teams)

Macquarie B and C ranking 115th and 138th

Save the date

11 March Introduction Day12-13 March Sydney Uni Grand Slam

10th14th April ANU Easters

The MUDS Contingent in Manila, Phillipines


11/12

Soapbox

Page 11

POI

Presuming that the Labor caucus retains basic

arithmetic ability on Monday, here is a rant about

why the grass simply wont be greener on theother side

Whether you prescribe to communitarian, libertarian orequalitarian models of government, you cant deny thatthe outcome of each should be a state that legislates onthe views of its people in both an efficient and effectivemanner. You really cant have one without the other. Anefficient state that is ineffective in reflecting the views ofits citizens generally ends up as a dictatorship, monar-chy or, in the case of North Korea, a democratic repub-lic. But if a state is inefficient in acting on its members

interests, you end up with debt ceiling crises and stag-nant European economies.

This is easier for some leaders than others. AngelaMerkel, a doctor of quantum chemistry, was handed thelargest economy in the EU just before a series of criseslowered the exchange rate to the point where Germanywas ensured export power so long as Greece continuedto flounder. Keeping in power was easy. On the otherend of the spectrum, Kim Jong-Un, the General Secre-tary of the Workers Party of Korea, has complete sup-port of an oppressive military regime. No brainer as tohow he managed to keep his fathers addiction to

Grange, gold toilet seats and general poverty alive.Both are in situations whereby they have complete con-trol of government, dont need to pander to minorityinterests and can enjoy government that the importantstakeholders see as effective and efficient. The same iscertainly not true of our Julia Gillard.

At least once a week, I open my SMH (app) to find thatsomeone else has a problem with Miss Gillard. Shevicariously caused the riots on Australia Day to whichshe herself fell victim, her office thought that she mightplan to further her career, she betrayed her predeces-sors promise in a bygone election to not cut private

health care subsidies. Its all a load of bollocks. Not onlyis every one of these simply a scare campaign, theyignore the multiple leaps forward that have beenachieved under her reign, whilst she didnt have controlof either house, whilst she had to pander to minoritiesand whilsta large proportion of Australians saw individ-ual actions of hers as effective and efficient.

Lets look at some of her steps forward. Whilst she cantclaim the title of being the first progressive leader tosupport homosexual equality, she can claim to be thefirst PM to facilitate it, despite vehement oppositionwithin her own party. Sure, the motion will fail, but atleast its a step. Another is the most progressive and

hopefully effective tax on carbon, which is specifically

targeted at minimizing the costs to the public. The NBN,which is getting us closer to the future (Im very sorry MrAbbott, but the answer never was and never will be cop-per wiring). The mining tax to increase government in-come, an increase of funding to underpaid communityworkers in an attempt to bridge the gender-based in-come divide and the introduction of plain packaging in anattempt to lower cigarette sales. All reasonable achieve-ments, all done with a minority government and a(relatively) hostile Senate. Now lets compare.

The last time the Liberals took power under John How-ard, they too had a hostile Senate (the balance of powerwas held by independents and Democrats), but did man-age to retain a clear majority in the House of Reps. Whatexactly did they achieve? They reined in Native Title af-ter the Wik decision went against the interests of theGovernment (but not those of the Aboriginal people).They cut a whole lot of spending to cover a similar sizedblack hole left by their predecessor (which interestinglyshould be filled quicker by Gillard and Swan than theLiberal fiscal saint Peter Costello). And they introducedAWAs as part of more sweeping workplace reform, alongwith the GST, in direct contradiction to one of their ownelection promises. But they won the next election withthe two-party preferred polling tilting ever towards big olBeazley.

So the moral of the story? Lay off the poor woman. Being

handed a minority government, a hostile Senate, an un-

grateful populace and a huge debt burden in a global

economic crisis does not exactly lend itself to effective

and efficient government, and yet still she manages to

pump out a few positive changes to Australian policy

every month. Better to revolutionise than stagnate, so be

grateful for what youve got because detailed program-

matic specificity and no usually just dont cut it.

Brown,DailyTelegraph


12/12

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cbg-cristea
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

POI Issue One

Documents