 | Up to |  | Home |  | Fred |  | Diary |
 | Site Map | | |  | Text version |
|
|
Fred's
Diary
-
2005
Dec
2
|
[Talk starts a bit late]
Intro - Pip Hinman from the Green Left Weekly
The terror laws have gone through, the Industrial Relations legislation is going through, welfare laws are going through, Van Nguyen executed ... [?Something about meeting on the eve of Human Rights Day odd - web search indicates this occurs in March?] ; Ruddock (rather deceitfully) saying all categories of speech will be protected [...] deportation of Scott Parkin.
The previous sedition laws were dismantled after the Vietnam war [...] struggle against these new (sedition?) laws won't be easy ... Iemma & NSW government just passed the state laws to enable the federal laws.
3 speakers: firstly, Nicole Watson [in place of her father, Sam Watson, unable to be here]. Nicole grew up in QLD under Joe Bjelke Peterson ... she's [a solicitor, a research fellow at QUT [couldn't type fast enough to get other biog detail]
Respects to traditional owners; acknowledged Van Nguyen. [...] Watson is from QLD, a Murri [...]
Will talk about historical QLD legislation that denied [a ?generation of people of ???]. This 'protectionist' legislation counters the argument that Australia has a human rights record. Protectionist legislation included indefinite detention [...and ???] This history must be recognised if we are to move towards [???]
When captain Arthur Philip unloaded his cargo in 1788, indigenous people became victims of legal fictions - Terra nullius, automatically became British citizens, rarely enjoyed any protections of the rule of law, law used to seize lands and violently repress resistance.
There were abuses such as native mounted police. There was a Royal Commission inquiry in 1981 into the native mounted police. Former officers were blatant about the brutality.
Throughout [19th? 20th? century] [protectionism / aboriginal protection & Restriction of ?Opium? Act] [repealed in 1984]. From QLD protectionism spread [around Australia?]. Won't dwell on the legal analysis. The Act gave the Director of Native Affairs unfettered discretion to remove any aboriginal to any reserve; once detained, one was there forever; there are families today on reserves who are descendants [of those put there?]. A Certificate of Exemption was issued at the Director's discretion and revokable at his whim; a condition of exemption was assimilation, exemption could be revoked by association with your aboriginal relatives.
There were offenses only applicable to aboriginal people: in 1945 activists [were?] subversive of good order, disobeying an order to stop dancing; in 1966 the offenses against ?discipline included being idle at work & behaving in an insulting manner. The punishment for offenses against discipline was detention in a dormitory ; the only obligation on the Director was to review detention every 6 months. It was possible to be detained forever with access to courts.
Until the 1970's a person leaving a reserve [?something]. [changes to the law in 1971] continued to restrict freedom of movement; entitlement to be on a reserve was up to the Director; Under Joe Bjelke Peterson, 'agitators' were kept from reserves, e.g. union reps talking about the underpayment of aboriginal workers.
A brief snapshot is horrifying enough: every human right integral to the [modern?] Australian ethos was taken away. Two examples of resistance: The Palm Island strike of 1957, and the Black Power movement in the 1970s.
The Palm Island strike is an important chapter in our history - the first action by indigenous people against the protectionist regime. Palm Island was a penitentiary for troublesome cases - political agitators etc. Threat of deportation effectively coerced indigenous workers into slavery. The Superindent was Roy ?Bartlan?, a sadist and zealous enforcer of apartheid; anyone late to the daily roll call was automatically jailed for 2 weeks ; every aboriginal adult, incl the elderly & [??] women were forced to work, the only payment was in rations. In the distribution of rations, the European majority had ample provisions, the aboriginals were forced to queue. Spoke to [?someone] who still remembers as a girl having to queue for hours for basic foodstuffs. The immediate cause of strike was the Superintendent's decision to deport ?Guyer? [*from* Palm Island] for the offense of talking back. The community rallied around him - the strike went for 4 days. The strike was broken by dawn raids on 5th day; the strikers were taken in manacles to the mainland - on arrival the strikers were exiled to other reserves, no charges laid, no legal advice [?something else?]. Nicole grew up learning about Captain Cook etc - the 5 day strike at Palm Island [and ?the Black Power movement?] were an inspiration. Nicole's father, Sam, was in the [?Black Panther?] party.
[The Palm Island strike] would also have inspired the Black Power movement. The Black Panther ?party? - borrowed from African counterparts - instituted programs like breakfast for children. Also the 'pig patrol' ; under Joe Bjelke Peterson there was a quota on the number arrests of indigenous people ; the 'pig patrols' raided pubs - the Panthers would visit the pubs in anticipation of a raid and record [events]; [the evidence gathered was used to break the quota system in the courts?]. Nicole's dad sat her down to tell about abuses - police sticking a gun up the nose & threatening to pull trigger ; no recourse [to ??]. No doubt that if the Panthers did this today they'd run aground of the new laws ; they were ?angry? young people - they [spoke about? made reference to?] urban guerrilla activities, buying guns ; it seems they weren't serious but the words would have [...?] ; they would have become a proscribed terrorist organisation ; cooperating members of the clergy would have [caught by the same legislation]
Nicole read the quote from the newspaper on Wednesday morning by former PM Malcolm Fraser, where he was considering resigning from the Liberal Party for [?"reversing centuries of advances in human rights"?] in a country that [?"prides itself on democracy"?]. Fraser was Prime Minister when Joe Bjelke Peterson ran QLD as a police state. Unlike Fraser we cannot look through rose-coloured glasses & forget. The Palm Island strikes gave courage to [?] [We'll ?outlive? this legislation]
Introduces the well-known Julian Burnside
Like Nicole, would like to acknowledge the traditional owners [of the land], and go a step further: our ancestors took it from them, took their children away, haven't said sorry, [...] it's not just enough to acknowledge [?].
Julian is currently representing a passionate kid who grew up on ?Kooring?; he got sick, went up to Adelaide, got over his gastro, the Aboriginal Protection Board gave him away. When his mother wrote in, the Board replied dishonestly that the doctors said he wasn't ready to come home. Over the next 8 years, his behaviour showed disrupted detachment - his symptoms at 3 years of age [?included], a medical term for tearing his own hair out. After a galaxy of symptoms, his foster mother threatened to send him back, revealed to him at 9 years of age that he was adopted. He was sent to his birth family for the holidays, went down for a visit during the next holidays [and the Board suddenly decided to move him permanently]. His foster family was denied contact, [and is ?considering? suing for damages].
The [SA?] government is playing hardball: when solicitors began to investigate this case in the mid-90s [they went to the] State Record office in Adelaide, and were given a file [of?] the Crown Solicitor's opinion from 1945-1955, the opinion in 1954 [?given to?] the Director of the Aboriginal Protection Board was that the Board did not have the legal power [to ?remove ?detain ?relocate the boy]. The board acted knowingly against the law. The solicitors paid a photocopying fee, now [the document? some legislation?] is being used against them, the SA government saying it's privileged ... the SA government made an application a week and a half ago asking for a restraining order against us because we're using this document against them. [It's a habit, governments behaving badly]
Julian spent the first 49 years of his life wholly uninterested in politics, remaining coldly distant until not long ago, voting liberal. [anecdote about voting in John Howard]. He's here to talk about what the government is doing to silence dissent.
New so-called anti-terrorist legislation. Many [charitable organisations have tax-deductible donations] [this '?DDR status' is granted by the federal government] about year ago the government considered revoking the DDR status of organisations involved in political lobbying -- it created an immediate chilling effect on organisations who otherwise support [list of groups, including refugee groups]. It's an insidious way of warning organisations not to speak out against governments.
[?will get to?] another 'hidden' ingredient shortly
Don't be unduly distracted by surface threats [to ?democracy], including [?the recent] anti terrorism legislation. It's not just in the [?recent] legislation: if you give vast powers to agencies effectively not accountable, you will get trouble - guaranteed - ask Cornelia Rau [and others that I couldn't type quickly enough!] ... full legal right to be in Australia. [Account of Robert Jovicic, a 38 year old man who had lived in Australia from the age of 2, deported to Serbia in 2004] ; his siblings have Australian citizenship, he was refused [citizenship] on character grounds ; he was removed from [Australia] for committing an offense carrying more than a years imprisonment. [Deported to Serbia, he was born in France, knows nothing of Serbia, not a Serbian citizen, he's now stateless]. You have to wonder about the mentality of a government prepared to throw someone on the scrapheap knowing that that [it's likely to destroy their life].
[Deportation of Scott Parkin, a minor critic of Halliburton's war profiteering] applied for and received [an Australian] visa, spoken to a couple of activist groups. In mid-September, leaving a coffee lounge, he was arrested by bunch of men from [?immigration] and [the Australian Federal Police] for being [?unlawfully in Australia]. Why was his presence unlawful? Because his visa had been revoked. Why was his visa revoked? Because he'd received an adverse ASIO assessment. Why was the assessment adverse? They won't say. Lawyers offered an undertaking not to tell anyone (not even Scott) in order to hear/assess the information ; a lawyer's undertaking is a pretty serious thing - lawyers risk being struck off for breaking an undertaking. Parkin spent 4 or 5 days in magistrates cells, was removed from the country in the company of 2 DIMIA officials, and was presented with a bill for his confinement and trip (incl the two officials, who extended their stay & went to Disneyland). For his money, ASIO won't tell him what he did; Parkin still doesn't know; Philip Ruddock hints darkly, but says Parkin didn't break the law, and says Parkin engaged in 'spirited dissent'.
Scott was the subject of a front-page article in the Australian by Greg Sheridan [aside about Sheridan's reputation as the Howard government's "attack poodle", they go to him when they wants to leak information] which 'explained', on reliable evidence, that Scott was supposedly [?planning to teach?] a technique of [using marbles to disrupt police horses]. Scott denies this - he's an animal lover & peace activist. [interjection from audience: that trick has around for years; reply from someone else: yes, used in Springbok demonstration] Not many people in Australia and not in a coma who aren't aware of this trick. Rolling marbles is not an offense, telling people about it is not an offense, thinking about telling people [laughter] ...
[?someone] received a text message from a journalist suggesting that we sue for defamation. If an individual outside Australia wants to run a case, the courts might order security for costs up front - it's a great way of stifling litigation. Maybe we could sue in Texas? Texan juries are pretty robust ... Anything published on-line is deemed to be published anywhere else. It may surprise you to know, the Australian newspaper [?for the first and only time?] did not include their front-page story in their on-line edition. If thinking about talking an act is an offense ... then God help us
Anti-terrorist legislation [provides that authorities can] hold [suspects] in detention, incommunicado, question them, force answers regardless of legal [?something], refusal [to answer means they] face 5 years jail, if they tell anyone about [?the detention they face 5 years jail], if anyone else learns [about the detention they face 5 years jail] ... Is this legislation for the worst terrorist suspects? No, it need not [be], e.g. [if authorities need only have a] reasonable suspicion that someone might have knowledge of [a terrorist threat]. ... Manifestly innocent people can be [???]
Human rights is ultimately about the treatment of people. Think of [a person you live with; think of] your reaction when that person doesn't come home - it might initially be irritation because of the dinner your prepared - after a few hours, you get concerned and ring the police and the hospital. You go to bed desperate. The next morning, when nobody can tell you what has happened, you're in a state of abject anxiety. When the missing person does turn up they can't say happened. Is that what we expect from a democracy?
As if this was not enough, just passed preventative detention - jailing someone just in case they were going to commit an offense, no presumption of innocence, no offense [?committed?], no evidence, on the balance of probability that you think they might be going to commit an offense. An ?order? is obtained by ?someone?, when the order is served, [?the approving magistrate?] is not given the evidence, just a summary of the evidence.
A person in preventative detention can call a family member, and can only say 'I am safe'. [suggested meaning if you get a phone call from a loved one with this message: "I am in real trouble"]. If [?the detainee] talks about it within 2 years, they face 5 years jail; a journalist [reporting the matter faces 5 years jail]. [?The case for the detention?] is proved in a hearing without the other party [who? ?the detainee? his legal rep?] present, on the balance of the subject planning to commit a terrorist act.
It's the anniversary of the Eureka stockade - in the criminal code, the definition of a terrorist act is any act which causes damage to property or serious injury, with the purpose of intimidating a government [...more stuff]. By that definition the Eureka Stockade was a terrorist act. The definition of unlawful association includes the advocating of a terrorist act, or praising a terrorist act. So celebrating/advocating the Eureka Stockade would constitute unlawful association.
Ned Kelly undoubtedly fits the current definition of a terrorist. We have a magnificent lie built into the 3rd verse of the national anthem "For those who've come across the seas we've boundless plains to share" [comment about refugees]; our national hero is a terrorist ; we're the only country that eats the animals on our national crest.
Control orders - may be made in absence of the person affected, [?something] includes training with a terrorist organisation, as was alleged of Mamdouh Habib. Ruddock says Habib has not committed anything against Australian law. [Control orders] restricting movements - confined to house, no phone, no internet - [compare with detention of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma] Again, only a summary of evidence [?is presented to the magistrate issuing a control order], [the evidence need not be] beyond reasonable doubt, [there is] no recourse to challenge for errors [in the evidence]. The most insidious part is the [?National Security Information Criminal Trials Act -- don't think this is the exact name because it doesn't come up in a google search] - amended to cover civil litigation of any sort. If in court proceedings, criminal or civil, a person intends to call evidence or cross-examine a witness or tender documents, if the evidence has a bearing [on national security] then the Crown must call [... chain of events - authority A tells authority B until the Attourney-General decides that] a certificate [to declare the evidence prejudicial to national security] should be granted, the certificate must be presented to judge, who must close the court, call a hearing to decide whether the evidence can be presented. For balance, the legislation directs the judge to give principle weight to the certificate. The hearing can go ahead without the evidence that caused the proceeding being [?known or?] challenged. [case of] Jack Thomas, an Australian taxi driver [arrested and detained without charge in Pakistan in early 2003] picked up by the CIA in Pakistan [and interrogated for 100 hours, interviewed/contacted by Australian Federal Police, Thomas asked them whether he should say anything, the AFP refused Thomas communication with a lawyer and advised him that saying something might clear up the matter of his imprisonment in Pakistan] - should the evidence [Thomas's statement] be admitted when taken in the absence of legal representation? The evidence was taken [?while or shortly after he was interrogated by the CIA?] ... Anything that may affect the way the CIA goes about its business affects (indirectly) Australia's national security interests and allows a certificate to be issued [to suppress information about the circumstances under which Thomas's statement was made].
What about [?civilians ?civil law?] Suppose Mamdouh Habib was given a control order, and wanted to challenge the evidence based on the circumstances under which it was taken; [something about Ruddock's well-known antipathy toward Habib]; this could lead Ruddock to issue a certificate [...chain of events which...] fails in the attempt to overturn control order. It's a guarantee that people who the government doesn't like will be treated with gross unfairness.
Can we trust this government not to misuse this legislation? Like to think we could all say yes. But how can you trust them? Trust a PM that tells us these laws are necessary to protect us from terrorism, in the same breath that he says that going to war hasn't increased risk of terrorism. [catalogue of Howard government's deceit - WMD, children overboard etc]
Let us not be mistaken - some basic democratic freedoms have been scrapped. Freedoms won and preserved in the constitutional struggles in 17th century Britain. Freedoms fundamental to our democracy, and the reason given is that by scrapping them we'll somehow reduce the risk of a terrorist attack. Advocates for law need to produce a case that the laws will reduce risk. The State Dept in the US has issued figures of the number deaths from terrorism worldwide. Up to 2001, it was 400-700 each year, spiked in Sept 2001 and then fell back to the previous levels. The risk of a westerner being killed is about [?1 in 10 million, about 1000 times more likely than a car accident, ??? times more likely than being killed in a homicide ?by someone you know]. Throwing away freedoms for a minuscule risk. Burnside thinks we should be alarmed, not just alert.
Comments on Scott Parkin. MX newspaper being distributed where GLW used to be.
Introduces Mamdouh Habib; he suffered badly under Australian policy, ... the Australian government was pushed into bringing Habib home by campaign. Habib is proof that when injustice becomes law, resistance become duty.
Thanks for bringing me back home [...
Australian people stood up for Habib, the US & Egyptians didn't. Believe we can bring all the innocent people home.
When Habib was a young boy, he lived in a country where [there was no justice], people went to work, your father can disappear because the government takes him. He left because westerners have human rights. [story about major traffic stoppage ?in Sydney? to allow the rescue of a cat - the cat is better off than people in Guantanamo Bay]; Habib was kidnapped, held hostage - for what, he doesn't know - didn't even know about the war in Afghanistan - his interrogators were very happy with the powers they'd been given, Habib asked them "what do you want from me?", [he? they?] had no idea. The Egyptian government [?is an] agent for torturing people - hope no one here goes ever [ends up in their hands]. Habib saw movie a few days ago that reminds him of what he went through, called "Out of Reach". Please watch the movie, then you'll understand what Egypt/Iraq/Jordan do. He used to believe in human rights, but after what he's been through ... he wants to know what he did wrong - asked the Egypt government - [he? they?] don't know, he asked the Australians, was sent to Egypt because of his Egyptian background. [Revisits story of the cat that is better off]. From Pakistan to Egypt to [?Pakistan?] to Guantanamo Bay. Not going to believe the things that happened to him - he's be instructed not to talk about it because of an impending court case. Where is the human right to speak? Asks what happened to his kids - they're far away from him because of what happened - why did it happen? Thanks people for standing up for him, and for David Hicks. He guaranteed [people that he heard crying in prison in the US/Germany/Egypt] that he would say something, but he can't [because of the legal case]. [Thanks.]
Won't stop campaigning until David Hicks (and 1 other Australian?) are home. On the 8th November there were raids in Melbourne & Sydney, accused terrorist suspects are facing a court hearing on Monday - at 9:15 there'll be a show of solidarity. [Other events mentioned].
Comment: thanks speakers, they're very brave nowadays. [Commenter] is German, in Australia for 13 yrs, a union activist - wonders what the chances are of not coming home one day? Concerned with rhetoric, the government describing itself as a protector of rights, with IR amendments taking away our protections. Banning of unlawful association, understanding is that that can be widened to marches, protests etc. Know the Howard government has been attacking unions since it came to power - waterfront/building unions. Why? because most militant unions have achieved good conditions and wages. One piece of legislation introduced recently involved secret devices to listen to workers conversation, not allowing the right of silence, people facing 6 months jail if they don't answer a question. Attacks on workers go hand in hand with attacks on civil rights.
Question: [somewhat in-depth about sedition laws, the wording of the schedule, good faith and the sovereign - I failed to get much of it down]
Reply (Burnside): [wonder if there's a parsing issue where the penalty applies to some particular paragraphs]
Comment: [had trouble following this comment too] many people concerned with Van Nguyen ; Hicks in Guantanamo for 4 years [..??..] not enough to say justice for Hicks ; 10th December is "Bring David Hicks Home" day. 2nd point ... meetings about ?? everyone can express their concern about civil rights ... have to get everyone fighting together. 2nd point [again? ah, who's counting] we have to be ready to [?], ready to respond to trouble ; must behind all the Mamdouhs of this country and be ready to get in trouble.
[Burnside suggests 'iamsafe.com', which sadly seems to have been taken by an internet domain speculator]
Question: The sedition laws were sent back from the Senate - what's been passed and what hasn't?
Reply (Burnside): Not sure - am just back from Adelaide. Not so concerned about sedition laws ; any misuse could be have been done under the previous laws if the government wanted. What worries Burnside is the [?National Security Information Criminal Trials Act, which I've almost certainly mis-typed] giving powers to agencies that aren't accountable.
Question: What actions would be good for meeting the challenge of these laws?
Reply (Burnside): Don't do anything foolish ; we need campaign of reasoned explanation and debate so that people can understand the ?dangers? of these laws ; many people believe laws like this will only used against bad people - "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I'm safe". The answer [to that position] is: consider child/spouse abuse - 90% happens in home - we could solve this overnight if we installed closed circuit TV in every room of every home - how many people would support that? How many people who had nothing to hide would oppose that law? If not, ask them if they close their curtains at night - "what are you hiding?" Basic democratic freedoms aren't an optional extra to protect the guilty - [?doesn't want to live in a country that's like a prison?]. These freedoms came from the 1605 plan to blow up parliament - the name most associated with that event is Guy Fawkes ; the gunpowder conspirators were pious, devout RCs who couldn't bear the way people were being persecuted - they did not have the support of their co-religionists - they were caught, tortured, tried, and executed. From the moment the plot was found it was pitched to public as a Roman Catholic attack on Britain. In the aftermath of this first terrorist attack on Britain, what followed was [assorted reforms]. It's interesting that while those rules of law were set in place as [a consequence of the activities of] terrorist fringe fanatics, 2001 sees the beginning of the dismantling of those freedoms. There is not an attack by Islam on the west, but you can't hear anything on the TV/radio without that association [being made]. It's a calumny - designed to make us accept laws like these.
Question: Thank speakers. Thank Julian for his respect that land stolen - only about twice in 10 years have heard someone say that. Aboriginal people have known all about terror for 200 years, and are still living in terror - took land, children, wages, rights, now they're going to do that all over again. It's specifically stated in the laws that aboriginals are going to be targeted - why? We'll be at the Commonwealth games in Melbourne, they don't want us there, they'll get rid of [us however they can]. Whenever [?others] or I get up to protest [...] Police already have the right to kill us - T.J. Hickey. We have to fight against bad laws always. Fought against Joe Bjelke Peterson's laws and other bad laws, but we need you with us. Need to stand up for people like Mamdouh. Need to stand together for all those the government has in their sights - while it's them and us today, it'll be your lot tomorrow.
Comment: [about GLW article - some manifesto] Tempted to take a stand - challenge the sedition laws in a way that brings them into ridicule. Can't urge disaffection against government.
Question: about letter as means of protest.
Reply (Burnside): Not allowed to advise - depends on whether you're [acting] in good faith - good faith override [in the legislation] - ?Chas ?someone? listed the groups against which he wished to invite disaffection - Royals as dysfunctional [government, etc]. He [specifically] disclaimed the good faith [defense]. Really interesting to see [what would happen now] that now [the new] laws are in. Not urging! Not inciting!
Question: [If we had to choose between trial in Australia or Guantanamo Bay]
Reply (Burnside): Unhesitatingly in Australia. Confidence in [Australian system]. Hicks is not going to be tried, he's going to be processed by people who have already been told he's guilty. Has no doubt about the honesty and independence of our courts, is grateful because they're the last line of our defense.
Question: hope to have someone talk at Politics in the Pub about a bill of rights. Would like Julian's comments on bill of rights. [Believe no Australian should be deported to another another country - extradition treaties?]
Reply (Burnside): A bill of rights is central, it will come, it will take time. [mention of NewMatilda website and justiceproject.com.au]. A bill of rights, to be truly effective, needs to be in the Constitution at a federal level, but [?in Canada] bills have been passed at the state level which alter the way bureaucrats, judges, [?some others?] approach their tasks. EU & bill of rights in England -- EU has a convention on bill of rights ; if Australia were geographically eligible for EU membership we'd be excluded on our human rights record.
Comment: campaign against Voluntary Student Unionism - interesting to note coincidence with pushing VSU at same time as anti-terr laws - clear aim of VSU is to silence dissent - Industrial Relations legislation, war in Iraq, anti-terror laws. Intimidation of activists on campus - the "VSU 3" - 2 students & 1 tutor from Sydney University arrested on [?alleged charges at a protest] - one arrested by plain clothes police while handing out leaflets for next VSU meeting, another picked up on way home from organising [the next meeting about] sedition laws - key part seems intimidation - supporting Iraqis - we should keep building movements.
Question: If asked about detention, can I say "I can't tell you because I risk going to prison for 5 years"?
Reply (Burnside): You should be safe, but take legal advice!
Comment: (Nicole Watson) the answer is solidarity - in addition to IR & anti-terror laws etc, native title is up for review, the Northern Territory Aboriginal Act [?new law or changes to existing law?] are going to take away a lot of rights [gained] over the years, [introduction of] privatisation of indigenous lands.
Comment: (Burnside) Three words: "Never give up".
Comment: (Habib) [can't reconstruct from my notes]
[Talk finishes]
|
|
| ||||||||||
