|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 11 October 2005
|
Project SafeCom
|
Oct 10, 2005 17:17 PDT
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 11 October 2005
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. Woomera pair back in custody
2. Escapees at large after three years
3. Govt criticised over treatment of Indonesian fishermen
4. Migration Litigation Reform Bill: tabling 'postponed'
5. Migration Litigation Bill: ALP, DEMS Reports
6. Solon case not ministers' fault: top bureaucrat
7. DIMIA and dimmer
8. Anti-terrorism laws 'an attack on personal freedoms'
9. George Monbiot: Protesters are Criminals
10. Our new terror laws too much like South Africa’s
11. Wikipedia: Power to the people
12. How the online world has redrawn the rules
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| This is the Project SafeCom Newsletter - also published
-|| as the RAC-VIC Newsletter (Racvicnews) since July 2004 by agreement
-|| with RAC Victoria, which endorsed that their news service be
-|| managed by Project SafeCom. More information about us below.
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
========================
1. Woomera pair back in custody
========================
The Age
By Jewel Topsfield
Canberra
October 11, 2005
TWO of the 11 asylum seekers who escaped from the Woomera detention centre
three years ago are back in detention.
An Iranian man was detained by police after failing to produce a ticket on
a suburban tram, an Immigration Department spokesman said.
The second man, also Iranian, surrendered to the department in Melbourne.
He was believed to have wanted legal status after three years on the run.
The men, one now held at the Baxter detention centre and the other at a
city detention centre, had evaded capture with the help of an underground
network of refugee advocates.
No criminal charges have been laid and the men are applying for visas to
stay in Australia.
About 50 detainees escaped from the now-mothballed Woomera detention centre
at Easter 2002 after more than 1000 protesters ripped down the fence during
violent clashes with police and security staff.
The escapees included high-profile asylum seekers Montazar and Alamdar
Bakhtiyari, who made their way to the British consulate in Melbourne where
they unsuccessfully sought to be protected from immigration authorities.
Another Woomera escapee, known by the alias "Ali", was captured by
immigration officers last October at a Lygon Street restaurant where he
washed dishes.
The Immigration Department said all escapees were reported to police, who
were provided with photos to help them catch the escaped detainees. Those
at large after the Woomera breakout were Iranians Mehdi Nozohouree, Ali
Reza, Jalil Khalili, Ali Rezpour, Farhad Baleshzar and Afghans Javad Ali
Naz, Murtaza Ghaznawi and Ali Sadiq.
"Each year the department locates more than 20,000 overstayers and people
breaching visa conditions," the Immigration Department said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the Victorian Greens have accused the Government of
discriminating against Chinese asylum seekers because of its close economic
links with China.
Greens refugee spokesman Peter Job said 22 Chinese asylum seekers had been
in detention in Villawood and Baxter for between two and four years, with a
number of others approaching the two-year mark.
"While most other long-term detainees have been offered one kind of
bridging visa or another, the majority of Chinese detainees have been
offered nothing," Mr Job said.
He said Chinese asylum seekers had been traumatised when Chinese officials
were able to visit them in detention, and diplomatic defector Chen Yonglin
was actively discouraged from seeking protection.
"In light of this track record, we are entitled to ask whether the
Australian Government is deliberately making it difficult for Chinese
asylum seekers to seek protection in Australia in order to kowtow to China
for trade reasons," Mr Job said.
An Immigration Department spokesman denied Chinese asylum seekers were
treated differently.
"Bridging visas are assessed on a case by case basis," the spokesman said.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/woomera-pair-back-in-custody/2005/10/10/1128796469849.html
===========================
2. Escapees at large after three years
===========================
news.com.au
From: AAP
October 10, 2005
TWO asylum seekers who escaped from South Australia's Woomera detention
centre during a mass breakout in 2002 have been recaptured after more than
three years on the run.
But nine asylum seekers who also escaped from outback Woomera during the
2002 Easter riots remained on the loose, the immigration department said today.
Dozens of other people were injured in violent clashes at the detention
facility during the breakout when protesters and detainees clashed with
police and the centre's security staff.
Up to 20 detainees escaped the centre, including the two young Bakhtiari
boys, who later unsuccessfully sought asylum in Melbourne's British Consulate.
They were deported, along with their family, to Pakistan late last year.
The immigration department said the two detainees who were recently
captured were now back in immigration detention.
Those still at large are Iranians Mehdi Nozohouree, Ali Reza Mehrabani,
Jalil Khalili and Farhad Baleshzar along with Afghans Javad Ali Naz,
Murtaza Ghaznawi, Ali Sadiq and Alimadad Jafari.
"All escapees from immigration detention are reported to the police and
other relevant agencies who are provided with biodata details and
photographs to assist in their location," the immigration department said.
"Whether or not photos are released is a matter for the police to consider.
"Privacy considerations prevent the department from releasing the photos.
"Details of each escape are recorded in departmental systems for the use of
compliance officers in locating these escapees."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16870335-29277,00.html
========================================
3. Govt criticised over treatment of Indonesian fishermen
========================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Tuesday, October 11, 2005. 8:36am (AEST)
An international security consultant has criticised the Federal
Government's treatment of 71 Indonesian fishermen caught in Australian
waters who are currently being housed in tents at a turf club in Broome, in
Western Australia's north-west.
The fishermen, who have been brought to Broome since last Wednesday, have
complained to the Indonesian consulate in Perth over their living conditions.
Neil Fergus, of the consultancy 'Intelligent Risks', says housing the
fishermen at the Broome Turf Club and in backpackers accommodation is
highly unsatisfactory.
"The point really must be made, without being melodramatic, that a number
of the illegal fishing operations have had connections with illegal piracy
in the Indonesian archipelago," he said.
"You could not discount, in advance of security checking, that you've not
got some brigand or literally pirate held amongst them."
But Federal Fisheries Minister Ian Macdonald rejected claims the fishermen
pose a security threat, saying the criminal masterminds of illegal fishing
operations rarely leave Indonesian soil.
"I don't see any security risk at all, these are not inherently criminal
people," he said.
"They are fishermen who are bought here to Australia against their will.
They're only interested in getting back to their home country and the only
way to do that is to be transferred by the Australian authorities."
The Indonesian consulate confirmed it had received a complaint and said it
had urged authorities to move the men to a detention facility in Perth as
quickly as possible.
Mr Fergus said the Commonwealth needed to build a proper facility or revamp
a disused detention centre at Willie Creek, north of Broome.
"I think it's a very unsatisfactory situation. The reality is that the
majority of fishermen that are apprehended by fisheries come from the low
socio-economic group and are unlikely to pose a security risk.
"But until they are identified, until there is some clarity on their status
and background, it is not good enough."
Mr Macdonald denied receiving a complaint from the Indonesian consulate and
said that the arrangements at the turf club were only temporary.
"They are in fact moved very quickly to detention centres in Perth or
Adelaide," he said.
"That happens at the outside within two days, usually a much shorter period
than that. But so far I haven't received any suggestion of a complaint from
Indonesian officials."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1479201.htm
======================================
4. Migration Litigation Reform Bill: tabling 'postponed'
======================================
Comment
Margo Kingston's Webdiary
11 October 2005
The scheduling for the tabling of the Bill (for today) has apparently been
delayed, and not for the first time according to inside Canberra sources.
It appears that the Bill will now probably not even make it into the Senate
during this session of Parliament. The Bill has been postponed umpty times.
It seems that the government is waiting for a "cool" period without DIMIA
dirt coming out - once again, after last week's Comrie Report into Vivian
Alvarez and the revelations by the Ombudsman that yet another person was
unlawfully locked away by the DIMIA cowboys for about 3 1/2 years, things
are just too hot to present this Bill - it would be "too visible" for this
government to sneakily rush the Bill into legislation.
If that's the criterion for this legislation, it may be another year before
the Government goes ahead with it: there's another 200 unlawful detention
stories that can leak to the media.
Posted by: Jack H Smit | 10/10/2005 6:45:03 PM
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/the_migration_l.html#comment-10186470
==================================
5. Migration Litigation Bill: ALP, DEMS Reports
==================================
From the Senate Inquiry reports (ALP COmments):
Labor Senators additional comments
1.1 Labor Senators acknowledge that the committee's recommendation from its
inquiry into the Judicial Review Bill in 2004 with respect to actual
notification of decisions has been taken up by the Federal Government in
the current version of the Bill. Labor Senators endorse the Federal
Government's reconsideration of its approach to this issue.
1.2 However, Labor Senators remain concerned about several issues raised
both in the course of the committee's current inquiry and its previous
inquiry, particularly in relation to time limits and the constitutional
validity of the Bill. Labor Senators again note that the Bill may be
unconstitutional insofar as it imposes non-discretionary, absolute time
limits for the judicial review of migration decisions, including those
decisions suffering from serious jurisdictional error. Therefore, Labor
Senators reiterate their previous concerns in relation to such
constitutional validity issues.[122]
1.3 Labor Senators also express their disappointment at the Federal
Government's continued failure to release the Penfold Report for scrutiny
and comment, particularly in light of the fact that the findings of that
Report form the basis of the Bill. Once again, access to the Penfold Report
would have been instrumental in allowing the committee to more adequately
assess the need and appropriateness of the Bill.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/mig_litigation/report/d01.htm
From the Senate dissenting report:
Australian Democrats dissenting report - Senator Andrew Bartlett on behalf
of the Australian Democrats
1.1 After reviewing the evidence and submission presented to this inquiry,
the Australian Democrats' view is that the Bill should be opposed.
1.2 The Democrats agree with the majority of witnesses to the inquiry that
there is no valid justification for the Bill. The number of migration cases
before the Federal and High Courts continues to decline from the
considerable increase in migration case numbers in 2002 -2003. This peak in
migration applications was due to the large increase in unauthorised
arrivals between 1999 and 2001. The number of unauthorised arrivals has
fallen markedly since then. Also evident is the fact that the 2002-2003
increase in migration cases was also due to the policy measures pursued by
the Government, especially in relation to decisions not to allow
representation actions in migration cases. Also significant is the
Government's continued refusal to publish the findings and recommendations
of the Penfold Report, which the Government asserts form the basis of the Bill.
1.3 In particular, the case has not been made for introduction of the
radical proposal to award cost orders against any person deemed to have
encouraged an unmeritorious application for review of a migration decision.
The Democrats share the concerns raised by many witness and submissions
that such provisions are in effect an attempt to discourage lawyers,
volunteers and other Australians who have a legitimate role in assisting
refugees and migrants.
1.4 Similarly, the Democrats consider that provisions seeking to restrict
judicial review of migration decisions by the imposition of time limits are
inappropriate and unnecessary given the courts' current powers to manage
their caseload and to screen out unmeritorious applications.
1.5 The proposed privative clause is equally problematic as is the Bill's
reference to 'purported privative clause decisions'. Serious doubts have
been raised over the constitutional validity of the latter as well as over
the imposition of time limits restricting judicial review of migration
decisions. Moreover, these provisions will compound the complexity already
inherent in the Migration Act and provide even more grounds for appeals.
This is at odds with the Bill's stated aim of reducing the number of
migration appeals and the associated cost and delay.
1.6 The Bill is based on a false premise and is unworkable and potentially
dangerous. As the Democrats stated in respect of the earlier Migration
Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 2004:
Once we start limiting access to the courts for particular sections of the
community, we are creating a legal system that does not hold everyone equal
in the eyes of the law. It is imperative that those seeking asylum are not
denied access to judicial review, particularly given the legitimate
concerns about the adequacy of the existing determination process. We
should be working harder to ensure that justice is delivered rather than
subverted.
These comments apply equally to the Bill and now have even more force given
the recent injustices wrought by the Government against its own citizens
who have the misfortune to become embroiled in its immigration regime.
1.7 Consequently, the Democrats believe that the Bill should not be passed
– even if it is amended in accordance with the Committee's recommendations.
The Democrats appreciate the reasons for the Committee's recommendations
for a report to Parliament on the operation of the Bill and for the sun
setting of the summary dismissal powers. However, the fact remains that no
real evidence has been presented which warrants the enactment of the Bill
in the first place.
1.8 Notwithstanding the above, if the Bill is to be passed by the
Parliament, it will be critical for the Committee's recommendations to be
implemented. In addition, the Democrats believe that it is crucial that the
Bill as a whole be subject to a sunset clause. The significant implications
of this Bill for the courts, the legal profession, the rule of law and the
lives of individuals at risk of persecution and seeking Australia's
protection make it essential that the operation of the Bill be fully
examined and debated by the Parliament if it is to continue.
Recommendation 1:
That the Bill be opposed.
Recommendation 2:
That, if the Bill is not to be opposed, it be amended in accordance with
the Committee Recommendations.
Recommendation 3:
That, if the Bill is not to be opposed, it be amended to include a sunset
clause which provides that the legislation will cease to have effect three
years after it commences.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/mig_litigation/report/d02.htm
===================================
6. Solon case not ministers' fault: top bureaucrat
===================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Monday, October 10, 2005. 10:47am (AEST)
One of the country's top public servants says it is right that immigration
officers should bear the blame for mistakes made in the wrongful
deportation to the Philippines of Vivian Alvarez Solon.
There have been calls for Immigration Minister Senator Amanda Vanstone and
her predecessor, Philip Ruddock, to resign in the wake of a scathing report
into the matter.
The report, by former Victorian police commissioner Neil Comrie, found
systemic failings within the department.
It also found three immigration officials knew of the mistake but did nothing.
Dr Peter Shergold, who heads up the Department of Prime Minister and
Cabinet, says the failure was not in the policy but in its implementation.
"Where there is a very sensitive policy, mandatory detention, it was
imperative that public servants implement that to the letter of the law,"
he said.
"And the department, for a range of reasons, had failed to do that."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1478343.htm
===============
7. DIMIA and dimmer
===============
Michael Pascoe, associate editor of Eureka Report, writes:
Who's going to take responsibility for DIMIA's "terminally corrupt
political culture"?
Crikey.com.au
Date: 7 October 2005
Another absolutely damning report on the Immigration Department, a few more
headlines, no-one is responsible, the Government neatly sidesteps the much
bigger outrage and nothing really happens. Same old, same old.
Just like the Rau case before it, the Vivian Solon investigation indicates
we have a terminally corrupt political culture – much worse than anything
Mark Latham's Diaries accuse anyone of. And just like the Rau case before
it, the investigation has been deftly kept within limited bounds to make
sure its ramifications will be strictly limited.
Already Amanda Vanstone, Co-Minister for No Responsibilities, has managed
to hose the whole thing down to three unnamed bureaucrats, one
of them already retired. Despite the department's overall culture being
fingered, no-one is responsible for it.
Indeed, those who are supposed to have been responsible for it, who are and
have been well paid to be responsible for it, have been given honours and
promotions. As the maxim of finance journalism goes, follow the money – and
if you do that you reach the conclusion that the Government has been very
happy with the way DIMIA operates.
But the big crime is the one Vanstone, Co-Minister Ruddock and Prime
Minister for No Responsibilities John Howard are all getting away with: how
DIMIA deals with non-Australian citizens.
It is a very fair assumption that many, many more people cop the treatment
dealt to Rau and Solon – but the Government will not be letting a
commission of inquiry look into that. These other people are not Australian
citizens and therefore apparently don't matter to Vanstone/Ruddock/Howard.
Yes, the system works just fine.
http://crikey.com.au/articles/2005/10/07-1611-7686.html
=======================================
8. Anti-terrorism laws 'an attack on personal freedoms'
=======================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Monday, October 10, 2005. 4:22pm (AEST)
A coalition of legal groups has spoken out against the Federal Government's
proposed counter-terrorism package, saying it is an attack on personal
freedoms, especially as Australians are not protected by a bill of rights.
State and territory leaders last month agreed to a new anti-terrorism plan
presented by Prime Minister John Howard.
The package includes the right to detain suspected terrorists for up to two
weeks and the legislation is expected to be unveiled soon.
Richard Faulks from the Australian Lawyers Alliance warns it is easier to
strip away individual rights in Australia as there is less protection.
"All other modern countries, countries in the Western world, have a bill of
rights or a charter of rights," he said.
"In those countries any change to the law involving the taking away of
rights, such as anti-terrorism laws, has to be dealt with in that framework
of a bill of rights, you can't just remove rights without proper scrutiny."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1478823.htm
================================
9. George Monbiot: Protesters are Criminals
================================
Filed under: law & order protest
And hardly anyone is contesting the new clampdown...
By George Monbiot
Published in the Guardian
4th October 2005
from www.monbiot.com
“We are trying to fight 21st-century crime – antisocial behaviour,
drug-dealing, binge drinking, organised crime – with 19th-century methods
as if we still lived in the time of Dickens”. Tony Blair, 27th September
2005.(1)
“Down poured the wine like oil on blazing fire. And still the riot went on
– the debauchery gained its height – glasses were dashed upon the floor by
hands that could not carry them to lips, oaths were shouted out by lips
which could scarcely form the words to vent them in; drunken losers cursed
and roared; some mounted on the tables, waving bottles above their heads
and bidding defiance to the rest; some danced, some sang, some tore the
cards and raved. Tumult and frenzy reigned supreme …”. Nicholas Nickleby,
by Charles Dickens. 1839.(2)
All politicians who seek to justify repressive legislation claim that they
are responding to an unprecedented threat to public order. And all
politicians who cite such a threat draft measures in response which can
just as easily be used against democratic protest. No act has been passed
over the last 20 years with the aim of preventing anti-social behaviour,
disorderly conduct, trespass, harrassment and terrorism which has not also
been deployed to criminalise a peaceful public engagement in politics. When
Walter Wolfgang was briefly detained by the police after heckling the
foreign secretary last week, the public caught a glimpse of something that
a few of us have been vainly banging on about for years.
On Friday, six students and graduates of Lancaster University were
convicted of aggravated trespass. Their crime was to have entered a lecture
theatre and handed out leaflets to the audience. Staff at the university
were meeting people from BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Shell, the Carlyle
Group, GlaxoSmithKline, DuPont, Unilever and Diageo, to learn how to
“commercialise university research”.(3) The students were hoping to
persuade the researchers not to sell their work. They stayed in the theatre
for three minutes. As the judge conceded, they tried neither to intimidate
anyone nor to stop the conference from proceeding.(4)
They were prosecuted under the 1994 Criminal Justice Act, passed when
Michael Howard was the Conservative home secretary. But the university was
able to use it only because Labour amended the act in 2003, to ensure that
it could be applied anywhere, rather than just “in the open air.”(5)
Had Mr Wolfgang said “nonsense” twice during the foreign secretary’s
speech, the police could have charged him under the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997. Harrassment, the act says, “must involve conduct on at
least two occasions … conduct includes speech.”(5) Parliament was told that
its purpose was to protect women from stalkers, but the first people to be
arrested were three peaceful protesters.(6) Since then it has been used by
the arms manufacturer EDO to keep demonstrators away from its factory
gates,(7) and by Kent police to arrest a woman who sent an executive at a
drugs company two polite emails, begging him not to test his products on
animals.(8) In 2001 the peace campaigners Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow
were prosecuted for causing “harassment, alarm or distress” to American
servicemen at the Menwith Hill military intelligence base in Yorkshire, by
standing at the gate holding the stars and stripes and a placard reading
“George W Bush? Oh dear!”.(9) In Hull a protester was arrested under the
act for “staring at a building”.(10)
Had Mr Wolfgang said “nonsense” to one of the goons who dragged him out of
the conference, he could have been charged under section 125 of the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which came into force in August.
Section 125 added a new definition of harassment to the 1997 act: “a course
of conduct … which involves harassment of two or more persons”. What this
means is that you need only address someone once to be considered to be
harassing them, as long as you have also addressed someone else in the same
manner. This provision, in other words, can be used to criminalise any
protest anywhere. But when the bill passed through the Commons and the
Lords, no member contested or even noticed it.
Section 125 hasn’t yet been exercised, but section 132 of the act is
already becoming an effective weapon against democracy. This bans people
from demonstrating in an area “designated” by the government. One of these
areas is the square kilometre around parliament. Since the act came into
force, democracy campaigners have been holding a picnic in Parliament
Square every Sunday afternoon (see http://www1.atwiki.com/picnic/).
Seventeen people have been arrested so far.(11)
But the law which has proved most useful to the police is the one under
which Mr Wolfgang was held: section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This
allows them to stop and search people, without the need to show that they
have “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal offence is being committed.
They have used it to put peaceful protestors through hell.
At the beginning of 2003, demonstrators against the impending war with Iraq
set up a peace camp outside the military base at Fairford in
Gloucestershire, from which US B52s would launch their bombing raids. Every
day – sometimes several times a day – the protesters were stopped and
searched under section 44.(12) The police, according to a parliamentary
answer, used the act 995 times, though they knew that no one at the camp
was a terrorist.(13) The constant harassment and detention pretty well
broke the protesters’ resolve. Since then the police have used the same
section to pin down demonstrators outside the bomb depot at Welford in
Berkshire, at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, at Menwith
Hill and at the annual arms fair in London’s Docklands.(14)
The police are also rediscovering the benefits of some of our more
venerable instruments. On September 10th, Keith Richardson, one of the six
students convicted of aggravated trespass on Friday, had his stall in
Lancaster city centre confiscated under the 1824 Vagrancy Act.(15) “Every
Person wandering abroad and endeavouring by the Exposure of Wounds and
Deformities to obtain or gather Alms … shall be deemed a Rogue and
Vagabond…”.(16) The act was intended to prevent the veterans of the
Napoleonic wars from begging, but the police decided that the pictures of
the wounds and deformities on his anti-vivisection leaflets put him on the
wrong side of the law. In two recent cases, protestors have been arrested
under the 1361 Justices of the Peace Act. So much for Mr Blair’s “21st
Century methods”.
What is most remarkable about all this is that until Mr Wolfgang was held,
neither parliamentarians nor the press were interested. The pressure group
Liberty, the Green Party, a couple of alternative comedians, the Indymedia
network and the alternative magazine Schnews have been left to defend our
civil liberties almost unassisted. Even after “Wolfie” was thrown out of
the conference, public criticism concentrated on the suppression of dissent
within the Labour Party, rather than the suppression of dissent throughout
the country. As the parliamentary opposition falls apart, the
extra-parliamentary one is being closed down with hardly a rumble of
protest from the huffers and puffers who insist that civil liberties are
Britain’s gift to the world. Perhaps they’re afraid they’ll be arrested.
References:
1. Tony Blair, 27th September 2005. Speech to the Labour Party conference.
2. Page 757 of the 1978 Penguin edition.
3. George Fox 6 Supporters Group, no date given. Students Face Jail for
Handing out Leaflets at University. Press release. There is more
information at: http://www.free-webspace.biz/GeorgeFox/
4. George Fox 6 Supporters Group, 30th September 2005. Student
demonstrators will appeal aggravated trespass conviction. Press release.
5. Section 59, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.
6. SchNEWS, 20th March 1998. Issue 159. http://www.schnews.org.uk/
7. Smash Edo, 26th March 2005. Arms Dealers Drop Legal Bombshell On
Protesters. Press Release. http://www.smashedo.org.uk/
8. Simon Dally, pers comm, 4th August 2004 and 21st February 2005. Simon
Dally acted as legal adviser in this case.
9. Yorkshire CND, 13th December 2000 and 16th January 2001. Menwith Hill
news diary.
http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/caab/articles/caabspmhs.htm
10. Schnews, 16th February 2001. Issue 293.
11. Mark Barrett, People’s Commons protester, 2nd October 2005. Pers comm.
12. Liberty, Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors and Berkshire CIA, 2003.
Casualty of War: 8 weeks of counter-terrorism in rural England.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/pdfs/casualty-of-war.pdf
13. Bob Ainsworth MP, 11th April 2003. Holding Answer.
14. Liberty, Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors and Berkshire CIA, ibid.
15. Keith Richardson, 30th September 2005. Pers comm.
16. An Act for the Punishment of idle and disorderly persons, and Rogues
and Vagabonds, in that part of Great Britain called England, 1824.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/10/04/protesters-are-criminals/
=====================================
10. Our new terror laws too much like South Africa’s
=====================================
Very alert and very alarmed, Bruce Haigh outlines his fears for Australia
under Howard.
Bruce Haigh
Canberra Times Opinion
3 October 2005
John Howard plays his politics incrementally. He acquires power and
influence bite by bite. He is a hoarder of power and influence against the
day when he might need it.
He stores information and is economic in disclosing it. He talks in the
broadest of terms and will not be tied down. He always has an exit
strategy, even when it tests credulity.
Defence, foreign affairs and immigration policy and decision making have
gradually been concentrated in his department. Economic prosperity,
isolation, insularity, insecurity, immaturity and inexperience have
undermined the ability of the media to examine and expose the critical
issues before us.
The Latham diaries and the interviews around their publication highlight,
among other things, just how supine the media has become in exposing
Howard’s agenda.
His latest acquisition has increased Commonwealth powers to fight what he
calls terrorism and he does this with the unbelievable compliance of State
Premiers.
Modern forms of terrorism preceded September 11 by at least three decades.
But the Howard/Bush interpretation of history has "the war against terror"
starting four years ago. Howard has played it for all it is worth. The
measures proposed will not stop attacks. They are more likely to promote a
hostility toward Howard’s non-inclusive "democracy".
Silly old Kim Beazley and some of his parliamentary supporters don’t see
Howard for what he is - a calculating and cynical acquirer of power. And
why would they, when they support 70% of the Coalition’s policies?
After having lived for 25 years in some rotten democracies and
dictatorships whilst serving as a representative of the Australian
government I am worried, very worried, about the path down which Howard is
taking us.
The focus on nationalism, played out by this Government around military and
sporting achievements, "the war on terrorism", the increasing use of the
phrase "un-Australian" to marginalize opposition, and a supine media,
should all be cause for concern as we move toward a one-party state.
What is the point of no return on the path of the breakup of democratic
institutions? Does anyone ever recognize when it has been passed? Was that
point recognized in Argentina, South Africa or Sri Lanka?
Howard has used the London bombings to extend his power; would he use
another bombing on Australian interests or institutions to further extend
his definition of terrorism and thereby his reach and control over our
lives? And why hasn’t New Zealand felt it necessary to enact similar laws?
The most telling point against Howard’s grab for further power is that
there was no public demand for any change to the laws to make us safer.
In the name of preserving State institutions and the economy, the South
African government from 1950’s to the end of the 80’s identified anyone who
sought to bring about change to apartheid as an enemy of the state. A whole
range of activities, statements and associations were branded acts of
terrorism. Laws against terrorism were passed by the parliament and upheld
by courts.
Sedition support and encouragement of "terrorists" were included in these
laws. The South African Defence Force was given a free hand to put down
internal unrest and dissent.
Communists were identified within South Africa and laws were passed to
prosecute and gaol anyone identified as such. This again was interpreted to
mean anyone or any organization which criticized the activities and
institutions of the state or who sought to bring about change. So South
Africa got the Terrorism Act, the Suppression of Communism Act, the State
Security Act, not all at once but incrementally ranging over thirty years
or so.
Under these laws one of the greatest men of our time, Nelson Mandela, was
gaoled for 27 years as a terrorist.
Another, Steve Biko, was murdered whilst being held for police questioning
under laws which mandated powers to arrest and detain for periods up to a
month without access to a lawyer, family or friends.
How long will it be under the Howard Government before statements critical
of anti-terrorist measures and of the people charged to implement them,
including the Minister, are equated with encouraging acts of terrorism or
helping to create an environment conducive to terrorism?
All the laws in South Africa did not stop people seeking and agitating for
change.
All those laws achieved was to sanction acts of state terrorism which
resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.
Bruce Haigh is a retired diplomat. From 1972-1994 he lived and worked in
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Sri Lanka.
Online at http://www.tonykevin.com/TerrorLaws.html
=========================
11. Wikipedia: Power to the people
=========================
Sydney Morning Herald
By Sean Dodson
October 8, 2005
What started as a side project with a small budget has grown into one of
the web's greatest success stories. Wikipedia - the open, editable
encyclopedia - and its sister projects have gone from nothing to 22 million
entries in under five years.
[web address: http://www.wikipedia.org/]
In doing so, Wikipedia - the centrepiece of the Wikimedia empire - has
become the most detailed encyclopedia in history. And its breathtaking pace
has yet to show any sign of slowing.
As an online knowledge database, Wikipedia has one significant advantage
over its expert, professional predecessors: anyone can edit it. Equally,
anybody is free to delete entries or add new ones.
The system works by using editable web pages known as wikis (hence the
name) that let ordinary users make changes as they see fit. And, in handing
this power to the people, Wikipedia has become more than just a hobby; for
some it is almost a religion.
The movement recently held its first international conference, Wikimania,
in a youth hostel in Frankfurt with 400 delegates who flew in from around
the world.
The Wikimedia Foundation is to knowledge what the Open University is to
academia, except it operates on an annual budget of $800,000 and - perhaps
most surprisingly - with a staff of one. It is written and administered by
a legion of volunteers. Tens of thousands of devotees, confessed
Wikimaniacs, squirrel away at the world's information, trying to cover "the
sum of all human knowledge" in every language spoken - and a few, such as
Sanskrit and Old English, that are long dead.
As well as the encyclopedia, the foundation also offers a dictionary, a
taxonomy of species and a nascent news service. All operate under the same
ideals of openness and public co-operation without the need of financial
incentive.
Jimmy Wales, the movement's founder, identified the next pieces of the
jigsaw likely to fall into place. In his keynote address, Wales listed
things "that should be free". While not quite commandments, they amount to
10 ideas about how the "Free Culture Movement", as he termed it, could
extend the Wiki ethic beyond the pages of its ever-growing encyclopedia.
Among the projects under discussion are an online atlas charted by members
of the public, a repository of classical music to be performed by student
orchestras, a file format to rival MP3, an online curriculum stretching
from kindergarten to university, and an archive of images of paintings by
the old masters. In short, Wikipedia is to spread its wings over many more
forms of culture.
What's more, there are 10,000 book "modules" being collaboratively written
within the pages of Wikipedia. Soon, they will be published under the
foundation's banner thanks to a deal with an "on demand" publisher. It
could, says Wales, signal a new kind of book publishing.
He also urged his hardcore following - the various volunteer "chapter
heads" who administer the Wiki projects and police the site for copyright
violations and mindless vandalism - to go forth and multiply. This is
important to Wales because, while Wikipedia is becoming a wider movement
theoretically open to anyone, only an elite few bother.
According to the movement's statistics, there are 3800 regular users making
more than 100 edits a month, and 18,000 more who make at least five. Then
there is a long tail of casual users who use Wikipedia as just another
authoritative source - as they might have once used Britannica or
Microsoft's Encarta, making the odd edit only if the urge took them.
As the movement grows, its organisation becomes more difficult. Already
there are Wikimedia "chapters" in Germany and France, who help organise
fundraising and allocate administration tasks. A British chapter is also
beginning to form, with a small group of Wikipedians meeting bi-monthly in
central London.
One of its regulars, Dave Gerard, a part-time volunteer editor and
full-time computer system administrator, admits he is addicted to Wikimedia
and spends several hours a day on work related to the site. Like most
editors, his primary motivation is to do "some public good". "I've been
filling my head with information for decades," he says. "This is a chance
to get it all back out again."
He is not alone. Since the Library of Alexandria was built more than 2000
years ago (but later destroyed), the dream of amassing vast quantities of
information has inspired the world. "What we're doing," Wales says, is
building "a world in which every person is given free access to the sum of
all human knowledge."
Just as astonishingly, he thinks it will take just a decade to achieve this
ambition. According to Wales, there are more than 22 million Wikimedia
entries in 200 languages. The aim is to provide for "every language in the
world spoken by at least 1 million people" by 2015. If this sounds like
chaos, think again: it's more akin to the ideas that fired the imaginations
of 19th-century political radicals such as Matthew Arnold and Mikhail
Bakunin. It is anarchy representing a self-regulating co-operative of free
thinkers acting voluntarily for a greater common good - and it works in
practice, too.
There is a rumour, started by a factual error in Time magazine, that the
Wikipedia entries for the US presidential candidates George Bush and John
Kerry were "frozen" during last year's election campaign, so fierce was
invective-laden spam being slapped around by both sides. In fact, the page
was closed "less than 2 per cent of the time," according to Wales. Even in
the heat of battle, Wikipedia can be relied upon as an impartial and
trustworthy source.
It should stay that way. Wikipedia will, Wales says, never carry a
commercial advertisement nor rely on government funding. The Wikimedia
Foundation is paid for by contributions from charitable foundations and its
reading public. Help comes from all quarters: Yahoo! recently donated its
old servers (banks of which reside in clusters in Paris, Amsterdam and
Florida) and the foundation holds bandwidth-buying fund-raising drives. In
February, Wikimaniacs were so keen to stump up the cash that they overshot
their target of $US75,000 ($95,000) in just a few days. The organisation's
budget is also online. In more ways than one, Wikimedia is an open book.
Which is why it is easy to discover that there are 600,000 articles in the
English language volume alone - not counting 70,000 more entries on its
sister Wiktionary. More than 1250 new articles - more than 500 an hour -
are added every day and entries are becoming ever more detailed. The
average number of edits - the inevitable revisions and corrections - in the
English encyclopedia is now more than 10, with the entries increasing in
quality as the project matures. That it achieves all this on its small
budget is astounding. The fact that it employs only one person is doubly so.
Wales started Wikipedia in 2001, as an offshoot to a failed commercial
encyclopedia, Nupedia. He made his first fortune from his days treading the
Chicago trading floors in futures and options, and made another with a
dotcom that peddled content - including soft porn - in the late '90s. He
now describes himself as "independently wealthy".
Given that background, it's unsurprising that very little content is
censored. And the site takes a provocative stance on the copyright of old
paintings, allowing images to be posted freely on the site. "I've told the
National Portrait Gallery I'll see them in court," Wales says.
It has so far avoided any serious trouble, though Wikipedia has twice been
blocked from China - "We don't know if this was just a mistake" - and once
from Saudi Arabia but only for a few hours in each instance. In 2002, most
participants of the Spanish Wikipedia broke away to establish the rival
Enciclopedia Libre, but there is now talk of welcoming them back.
It could be said that the mark of a good technology is when Microsoft
starts "borrowing" your ideas. Microsoft's Encarta announced in April that
it was adopting Wiki-style open editing for its paid encyclopedia. Others,
such as the Free Encyclopedia, have copied the ideas pretty much wholesale.
- The Guardian
A Wiki world
Gathered from various sources, the entries in Wikipedia are numerous and
comprehensive.
Mabo
A landmark Australian court case which was decided by the High Court of
Australia on June 3, 1992. The result of this judgement was to make
irrelevant the declaration of terra nullius, or "empty land" which had been
pronounced at the time of British colonisation in 1788, and to recognise a
form of native title.
September 11, 2001
September 11 is the 254th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar (255th
in leap years). There are 111 days remaining.
The terms 'September 11', '11th September', and '9/11' have been widely
used in the Western media as a shorthand for the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Rugby league and rugby union
In the league code, the scrum still exists, but with greatly reduced
importance [compared with the union scrum], and line-outs do not occur. By
reducing the importance of these set pieces, Rugby League has evolved into
a simpler, faster and more attacking game with a greater emphasis on
running with the ball in hand and passing.
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Mary Kidman (born June 20, 1967) is an Academy Award-winning
Australian actress, producer and singer. She was born in Honolulu, Hawaii
to Dr Antony David Kidman and Janelle Ann (nee MacNeille). The family
returned to Australia when Nicole was four years old.
Cyclone Tracy
Cyclone Tracy was a tropical cyclone that devastated Darwin, Australia,
from December 24 to December 25, 1974. It was recorded by The Age as being
a "disaster of the first magnitude ... without parallel in Australia's
history." It killed 65 people and destroyed over 70 per cent of Darwin's
buildings, leaving [more than] 20,000 people homeless.
Neighbours
Neighbours is a long-running Australian television soap opera running daily
episodes of 25 minutes, excluding commercials. Originally aired on the
Seven Network in Australia in 1985, it was shifted to Network Ten early in
its life. The series follows the daily lives of several families who live
in the fictional Ramsay Street, Erinsborough.
Ricky Ponting
Ricky Thomas Ponting (Born December 19, 1974, in Launceston, Tasmania) is
the present captain of the Australian One-Day and Test cricket teams. He is
one of the world's leading batsmen in both forms of the game, as of August
2005 having made [more than] 7000 runs, played [more than] 90 Tests with
the outstanding batting average of 56.00.
Anthony Mundine
Anthony "The Man" Mundine is a boxer and former Australian Rugby League
player. He is the son of boxer Tony Mundine, a Middleweight contender
during the 1970s who is also his trainer. He was named the 2000 Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Person of the Year.
Mark Latham
Latham captured national attention with his innovative policies and
unconventional approach, but also attracted controversy regarding his
colourful past. In the October 2004 federal election, Latham was soundly
defeated by the incumbent Prime Minister John Howard. In September, Latham
released a set of diaries in which he attacked many of his former colleagues.
South Sydney Rabbitohs
A team in the National Rugby League (NRL), the premier rugby league
football competition in Australia. There was wild partying from Rabbitohs
supporters on the afternoon of Sunday, March 20, 2005, when Souths bounced
back from an anticipated loss to the Roosters the week before. The season
was just two rounds old and already the Rabbitohs had a thunderous win on
the board - 49-26 over the Parramatta Eels.
Westie
Westie, or Westy, is a term used in Australasia for members of a white,
blue collar and/or underclass subculture. The name originated, and is most
often used, in relation to residents of the numerous western suburbs of
Sydney, Australia and of Auckland, New Zealand.
http://smh.com.au/news/icon/power-to-the-people/2005/10/04/1128191719205.html
==================================
12. How the online world has redrawn the rules
==================================
The Age
By CATHARINE LUMBY
October 3, 2005
ROBERT MANNE is consistently hailed as one of Australia's most important
commentators. In a recent Sydney Morning Herald poll of opinion makers
which resulted in a list of Australia's top 100 public intellectuals, Manne
came in at No.1.
But when it comes to blogs, Manne gets precisely the same kind of
schizophrenic treatment as any other public figure. As with Kate Moss, who
was both pilloried and canonised by online commentators across the globe
following more allegations of cocaine use, Manne is a screen for other
people's hopes, fears, furies and insecurities.
If you use a blog tracker like Technorati to pull up recent mentions of the
political scientist, you will find the following recent post from a
32-year-old woman named "laura" who runs a blog called Sorrow at Sills
Bend. It's unclear from a quick visit to her site what she does but I'm
guessing she's a junior lecturer or perhaps a PhD student at La Trobe
university.
She wrote recently that Manne "may frequently be observed having his hair
cut in the university hairdressers, buying a sandwich, examining library
books, and generally pacing the corridors and pathways" but that "I've
never observed him betray a glimmer of recognition towards another person".
From this she drew some unkind and unfair conclusions about Manne's
personality.
What she seems to be saying, of course, is that when she sees Manne walking
around he fails to recognise and greet her. Perhaps he doesn't know who she
is.
Clearly she's in no position to know how many other people he greets in the
course of his ordinary life.
On the face of it, this posting about Manne is so trivial and so ad hominem
that it isn't worthy of mention. And yet it's precisely these
characteristics which mark it out as iconic of so much online commentary.
The personal attack, the seemingly projected insecurity, the insult posing
as argument, a tone of barely suppressed shouting - these are the hallmarks
of too much commentary online and even of some commentary posted on
professional sites such as www.Crikey.com.au and Webdiary.
One response - and one I'm sympathetic to - is to say that public figures
with good profiles and a large podium should take pretty much what anyone
dishes out to them. And that if that means putting up with other people
projecting their anger or angst into the public sphere, it's a small price
to pay for the democratisation of debate.
But even if we leave individual sensitivities out of it, the ad hominem
character of so much online debate and commentary does raise a set of key
ethical questions about the character and quality of debate in our media.
Because the fusion of blogging and conventional journalism is arguably
where a significant portion of our media is headed.
The online environment is the next phase in the democratisation of the
media, and one in which the distinctions between the media producer and
consumer, the professional and the amateur, and the public and the private
conversation will increasingly disappear.
A pressing question is how to maintain a level of civility in debate
without crushing it or imposing ideological barriers.
Margo Kingston is one of the few Australian editors of an online media site
who has given serious and sustained thought to this issue. Webdiary abides
by a detailed set of ethical house rules.
A senior media professional with almost two decades of experience under her
belt, Kingston works in an interactive way with her contributors to both
re-examine conventional journalistic ethics and to educate them about why
there is a need to think carefully about their ethics of engagement with
others.
Not that Webdiary's house rules stopped a regular flaming for my first
contribution recently in the following terms: "Can anybody explain to me
what Catherine (sic) Lumby actually stands for? How on Earth is she a
'Professor' for goodness sakes." Kingston put a rider on this comment
asking the contributor to refrain from personal insult and to go and read
other stuff I'd written.
She needn't have. I often ask myself the same question - albeit in a
slightly less hostile way. I think anyone who engages in any kind of public
forum regularly needs to continually question the value of what they're
contributing and their reasons for doing it.
Speaking intelligently always involves a measure of listening
intelligently. It involves the capacity for empathy. As Manne once argued,
the best metaphor for public intellectual life is not the lecture but the
conversation.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/how-the-online-world-has-redrawn-the-rules/2005/10/02/1128191605844.html
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| This is the Project SafeCom Newsletter - also published
-|| as the RAC-VIC Newsletter (Racvicnews) since July 2004 by agreement
-|| with RAC Victoria, which endorsed that their news service be
-|| managed by Project SafeCom. More information about us below.
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-||- Project SafeCom info
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Online archives of our News & Updates:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/safecom/read
Project SafeCom has operated a "virtually full-time" operations office
since TAMPA. At Project SafeCom, an Incorporated Association in Western
Australia, we exist from donations, the sale of some items via our website,
and from memberships. You can make a donation by transferring funds to our
account at Bendigo Community Bank Kulin, BSB Number 633-000. Account name:
Project SafeCom Inc., account 11564 3900, or by sending a cheque or money
order to our address below.
P.O. Box 364 - Narrogin WA 6312 - Phone 0417 090 130
+-+-+-+
LINKS:
+-+-+-+
ROYAL COMMISSION Petition: download it, print it, put it out - everywhere
around town: http://www.safecom.org.au/royal-commission.htm
The bLog - FIXING AUSTRALIA: http://www.safecom.org.au/fixing-australia.htm
What's New - this page lists all the new additions to the website -
hundreds of pages: http://www.safecom.org.au/whatsnew.htm
Project SafeCom events page: http://www.safecom.org.au/events.htm
The Reading Room: http://www.safecom.org.au/readings.htm
The Project SafeCom shop: http://www.safecom.org.au/products.htm
Our Baxter page: http://www.safecom.org.au/baxter.htm
Project SafeCom's No War position: http://www.safecom.org.au/no-war.htm
.
|
|
 |
|
