REPCO Rally Australia's assumed overwhelming popularity of the proposed rally is questionable; their claims vary from suggestions of 'overwhelming' and 'tremendous' support, to a more subdued 'substantial community support'.
One could just as accurately say there is substantial community dissent, a fact Mr Connolly appears to dismiss. Mr Connolly says: "It's clear from our public and private meetings, the letters we receive and the resident surveys we have conducted so far, that there is tremendous support." At those public meetings I have witnessed a substantial and ever-growing anti-rally presence, and Mr Connolly has himself acknowledged surprise at the level of dissent.
Can RRA's claims of community support be viewed as a legitimate measure of the value or appropriateness of this event, when many, many people's views have neither been sought nor taken into consideration?
Mr Connolly's mention of Repco's 'environmental initiatives' might appear impressive - he has even invited people to read Repco's Environmental Policy. The policy aspires to 'zero net harm to the environment', and says RRA's 'vision' is 'that Repco Rally Australia is conducted with minimal adverse effects on the environment'!
Gratifying; but where does Repco propose this rally be run? Through National Parks and along fragile creek sides and other wildlife corridors. Oh, and the run also will be very, very fast! To aspire to something noble, and then propose an activity which renders that aspiration unachievable, defies explanation.
'Minimal adverse effects'? Please! There is nothing, absolutely nothing, environmentally friendly about a high-speed car rally through creek side and 'endangered' wildlife corridors and National Parks.
RRA, by its activities, are deriding their own Environment Policy, and that does not engender my trust.
HEREWITH an Australian short story yet to enter the history books in its entirety:
In 1788, Captain Arthur Phillip, funded by Bank of England moneylenders, illegally conquered this land, employing ultra vires law (law without authority) under a British-enacted Australian Constitution, to retain Australia as a British Colony.
In 1919, a money-powered League of Nations mish-mash of 'international law' played down existing Family of Nations land settlement laws, and gave the green light for an unlawful Australian sovereignty under the constitution of a foreign power (UK) - and Captain Phillips' unmitigated conquest was conveniently overlooked. …