|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 19 October 2005
|
Project SafeCom
|
Oct 18, 2005 16:35 PDT
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 19 October 2005
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. Detainee likens prison to Guantanamo Bay
2. Unease mounts over anti-terrorism laws
3. Rau sister tells of hate mail
4. We Remember SIEVX
5. The Inaugural SIEVX Awards 2005
6. Terminally ill migrant sues over immigration detention
7. Three weeks until new year's day, 1984
8. The real threat to the life of the nation
9. The Howard counter-terrorism legislation, and me
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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. Detainee likens prison to Guantanamo Bay
=================================
Sydney Morning Herald
By Tom Allard
October 19, 2005
The first Australian arrested, and then acquitted, under Australia's new
terrorism laws - Zeky "Zak" Mallah - has been released from prison and says
he suffered mistreatment there "just like in Guantanamo Bay".
Among Mr Mallah's allegations are that prison officers beat him, repeatedly
desecrated the Koran, urinated on prayer mats and kept him in solitary
confinement for nine months, even though he was on remand and had not been
sentenced at the time.
He also says he was punished by being stripped to his underwear and kept in
a bare cell for 24 hours with the air-conditioning on full blast.
"They treated me like I was in Guantanamo Bay," he said.
"I wasn't even convicted of terrorism. Why was I handcuffed with padlocks
so tight around me like shackles. Why did they hold a shotgun whenever I
moved? If I moved 5 to 10 metres, they gave me a special escort."
Mr Mallah served two years in prison after pleading guilty to making
threats to kill Commonwealth officers but was acquitted on two charges of
preparing for a terrorist act, for which he would have served a life term.
His release was delayed for five weeks because he attacked a prison
officer, an act Mr Mallah says was provoked by the refusal of authorities
to downgrade him from the "extreme high risk" category despite his
acquittal on terrorism charges and impending release.
That meant he still could not attend Friday prayers and would continue to
be handcuffed when he moved around the prison.
He said Silverwater warders beat him after the incident.
"They took me to the cage, where there are no cameras. I got punched in the
chest, an uppercut to the jaw, then they held my hair and smashed my head
into the wall."
He says he was thrown into isolation after being stripped, with the
air-conditioning on full.
A spokesman for NSW Corrective Services confirmed that NSW Police had
investigated the alleged mistreatment of Mr Mallah, but said he was unsure
of its verdict. NSW Police was unable to comment last night.
Since his release on the weekend, Mr Mallah has been spending a lot of time
with the senior imam of Lakemba Mosque, Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly.
"He's a wise man, very wise," he said. "He's giving me counselling. He's
telling me to chill out a bit, stop getting into trouble … I don't want to
go back to jail again."
Mr Mallah was arrested in unusual circumstances. An undercover officer
posing as a freelance journalist encouraged him to make a videotape
proclaiming violent jihad, which he provided for a promised sum of $3000.
He also told the officer that he wanted to take Foreign Affairs and ASIO
officers hostage, killing them and himself in protest of the Federal
Government's refusal to issue him a passport.
He also had his home raided, where a rifle and ammunition were discovered -
this was the basis for a second, dismissed charge of preparing a terrorist act.
Long under surveillance by security services, he had earlier been recorded
asking a cleric, Sheik Abdul Salam Zoud, for permission to travel to the
Middle East and become a suicide bomber.
Sheik Zoud said he told Mr Mallah not to.
Mr Mallah was arrested in November 2003 but was not sentenced until March
this year.
Justice James Wood accepted his explanation that he was in a disturbed
state when he made the videotape and that he never intended to carry out
the threats.
Mr Mallah had been recently orphaned, had no family support or regular
income and Justice Wood said the media had encouraged him to make
outlandish statements.
Still, he will likely remain under surveillance by authorities.
"ASIO are still going to watch me. I'm still under surveillance," Mr Mallah
said. "ASIO still thinks I'm guilty."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/detainee-likens-prison-to-guantanamo-bay/2005/10/18/1129401256814.html
==============================
2. Unease mounts over anti-terrorism laws
==============================
The Age
By Michael Gordon,
Barney Zwartz
and Rachel Kleinman
October 19, 2005
MULTICULTURALISM is an ally, not an enemy, in the fight against terrorism,
prominent Liberal Petro Georgiou has declared, as Muslim leaders warn that
new laws could increase Australia's security risk by isolating their
communities.
Mr Georgiou, a staunch advocate of civil liberties, last night urged the
Government to consider setting up an independent watchdog to monitor the
impact of sweeping anti-terrorism legislation.
He said the authority could report regularly to Parliament so that any
"unintended adverse consequences" of the counter-terrorism legislation were
identified and promptly rectified.
The idea was immediately backed by prominent Queensland Liberal senator
George Brandis, who supported expanded powers in the fight against
terrorism, but said it was important to "correspondingly expand" the
safeguards against abuse of powers.
The call from the high-profile Liberals came as Muslim leaders said they
were dismayed by the sweeping new laws, branding them draconian, alarming
and a knee-jerk reaction.
"Now that we've had a chance to see some of the proposed detail it's even
scarier than we imagined," said Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman
Waleed Aly.
Mr Aly said there was a sense among Muslims of alienation from the
Government. "I don't think that's healthy from the social or security
perspective." He accepted that the Government did not intend to target
Muslims, but believed this was inevitable.
"The mood of the community is very dejected. Muslims are really gutted
about the whole terrorism phenomenon and (feel) that they are being defamed
by their co-religionists, but there is also a very strong sense of
dejection about the Government," Mr Aly said.
The comments are in contrast to the declarations of support and
co-operation that emerged during Prime Minister John Howard's summit with
Muslim leaders less than two months ago.
Mr Georgiou, delivering the Castan lecture in Melbourne last night,
stressed that care must be taken to ensure the new laws did not unfairly
affect Muslim and Arab Australians.
"I believe that a commitment to multiculturalism, to respecting diversity,
is vital to achieving and maintaining the highest level of community
co-operation and participation in the fight against terrorism," Mr Georgiou
said.
One concern was that laws that were intended to be non-discriminatory might
be applied in a discriminatory way — "that the security and police agencies
will use their powers against people who are suspect because of their
actual or presumed religion or ethnic background, not on the basis of
information about behaviour of particular individuals".
While the sense of security of all Australians had been shaken, Mr Georgiou
said there had been additional consequences for Arab and Muslim
Australians. "They have become vulnerable to suspicion, victimisation and
prejudice and their loyalty to Australia has been publicly questioned."
Most concern has focused on new laws to place suspects in "preventive
detention" for up to 14 days and subject them to control orders for up to
12 months, including house arrest. Mr Georgiou said the laws highlighted
the need for effective safeguards against abuse of new powers.
Responding to calls for the abandonment of multiculturalism, he said:
"Abolishing SBS, stopping the teaching of languages other than English and
banning burqas is not going to make us safer. On the contrary, I believe
that our response to the threat of terrorism demands a strong commitment to
multiculturalism in principle and practice."
Mr Georgiou said there were several options for giving MPs regular updates
on the implementation of the new laws, including review by a parliamentary
committee and the British practice of appointing an independent reviewer.
While federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock was required to establish a
public review of counter-terrorism laws that have been in place since
mid-2002, this was a one-off requirement and the review would disband once
it reported some time next year. "In view of the concerns about the
potential impact of the legislation which have been expressed from a number
of sources, the idea of an independent, statutory monitor, reporting
regularly to the Parliament, has much to commend it," Mr Georgiou said.
A spokesman for Mr Ruddock last night played down the need for such a
statutory monitor, saying a number of "review and oversighting mechanisms"
were already in operation.
Amjad Mehboob of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils said the
greatest concern was that innocent people might fall victim to the new
laws. "We've seen a man in London shot to make sure he was dead — seven
bullets, not one or two to disable him. That's frightening."
Mr Mehboob said the federation had received expert advice that existing
laws were sufficient to combat terrorism.
Sheikh Fehmi Naji el-Imam, secretary of the Victorian Board of Imams, said
the Muslim community supported anti-terrorism laws, but thought the
proposals harsh. "They are strict laws, a little bit harsh, but hopefully
no one will be subjected to them. We cannot change them, but we are talking
to the Government," Sheikh Fehmi said.
Australian Arabic Council chairman Roland Jabbour said the Government was
taking a simplistic approach to a complex problem in a "knee-jerk reaction"
that merely copied other nations.
Premier Steve Bracks yesterday defended the draft laws, saying he would not
compromise on community safety. He said Mr Howard and state leaders had
adopted his proposed safeguards, including the right to legal
representation, to traditional oversight and a sunset clause.
Mr Bracks said shoot-to-kill proposals had not been discussed at the
Council of Australia Governments meeting where the draft laws were forged.
"Now the PM said (on Monday) that the COAG recommendations will be
implemented. We will hold him to that position," he said. "But nothing
should prevent us from ensuring we have a safe community, a community which
does everything it can to protect (against) terrorism, and that is exactly
what these laws are about."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/unease-mounts-over-antiterrorism-laws/2005/10/18/1129401259010.html
======================
3. Rau sister tells of hate mail
======================
The Australian
By Steve Connoll
October 18, 2005
CORNELIA Rau's sister has revealed her family received faeces-smeared hate
mail for speaking out about the mentally ill Australian resident's wrongful
detention.
Freelance journalist Christine Rau today also criticised the lack of
community outrage in Australia about human rights abuses, particularly to
detainees.
Her 39-year-old schizophrenic sister was held as an illegal immigrant for
10 months, initially at a Brisbane women's prison and later at South
Australia's Baxter Detention Centre.
An investigation by former federal police chief Mick Palmer, following Ms
Rau's release earlier this year, found policy errors and systemic failures
in the immigration department were at fault.
Christine Rau told a Brisbane legal luncheon her sister's case had brought
home to their family the depth of ill-feeling in Australia towards illegal
immigrants.
She said this was felt "very personally" when a letter meticulously smeared
with faeces on one side" was sent to them on the eve of the Palmer report's
release.
"This was because we'd dared to raise the lid on immigration issues with
our own investigation and because Cornelia had the temerity to say that
she'd be seeking compensation further down the track," she said tearfully.
Ms Rau said that under the Howard government a "malaise of community
inertia" over the rights of the mentally ill and refugees had developed.
She said critics of the government were also "publicly sneered at in an
automatic, almost knee-jerk, reaction".
"It's as if scepticism has somehow or other become unpatriotic," she said.
"Only on industrial relations (IR) has there been any sort of concerted
effort to counteract a growing social imbalance.
"Yet, there seems to be no shortage of outrage against those people against
who the government has so deliberately depersonalised as being illegals and
queue jumpers.
"I wonder if the author of that letter (to the Raus) is going to be
affected by any of the proposed changes to IR or welfare and whether they
would send equally vehement letters about these issues."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16959622%255E1702,00.html
===================
4. We Remember SIEVX
===================
SIEV.com
by Marg Hutton
17 October 2005
Wednesday is the fourth anniversary of the sinking of the doomed SIEVX. To
commemorate the occasion we are revisiting some earlier writing on the
tragedy:
'[I]n the end the most haunting image the [2001 Federal] election threw up
was not that of a presidential Howard embracing world leaders or an
avuncular Beazley embracing punters. Rather, it was a picture of three
smiling young girls, three girls who looked radiant, beautiful children who
drowned on a boat along with some hundreds of others falsely hopeful of
becoming Australians...
In a room in [Sydney] a father refuses water because every time he drinks
it reminds him of the mouths of his three beautiful daughters filling with
water, irrevocably, fatally. The media tell us Kim Beazley is a good man.
But like John Howard, Kim Beazley says rules are rules and like John Howard
does not think this man ought be allowed out of Australia to visit his
grieving relatives.
This is not my Australia, I want to say to that grieving father. I want to
tell him things that are not possible: how if I could sing the sea out of
his sweet daughters' lungs and have them Australian, oh how I would. To say
that I am ashamed and lost and my country with me and no one any longer
knows the way back from such terrible shame, this shame that is now ours.
But words were cheaper than children's lives in Australia now, and all were
relaxed and comfortable inside their lounge rooms, curtains firmly drawn,
and no one wished to venture outside to see the corpses that flecked the
distant ocean like storm-tossed kelp leaves.'
Richard Flanagan ~ 'Election 2001: this is not my Australia' The Age, 9
November 2001
~~~
'The loss of SIEV X is Australia's loss: 146 children died, some quickly
others slowly; they should have grown up to be Australian - we will
remember them. 142 women died, loving women who bravely traversed the world
because Australia promised freedom once - we will remember them. 65 men -
doctors, an engineer, linguists - fine and resourceful people we would have
been proud to call Australian - we will remember them.
As we mark [the fourth] anniversary of 353 human lives lost, as this
tragedy knifes its way into the soul of our nation, we remember you with
burning hearts. Rest in Peace for you are not forgotten, nor will you ever
be forgotten. You are part of this country and its people.'
Mary Dagmar Davies, Eva Sallis, Pamela Curr and Garry Bickley
Edited from Jannah the SIEVX Memorial condolence messages and published in
the Australian on the first anniversary of the sinking, 19 October 2001.
~~~
'It will be a day and a date I will always remember, because 19 October
2001, the day that all those children drowned, was the same day that my
first and only daughter, Lillith, was born. She is, in my view, the most
beautiful girl ever born - I apologise to everybody else who might have
children, but that is just the way it is - and to think that, at the same
time that she was being born and all the wonder that goes with that, there
were 146 children whose lives were about to end as they struggled in the
water in such fear and terror. It is indeed a tragedy, and it is one that
should be remembered. They were all trying to seek a better life.'
Senator Andrew Bartlett, Speech on the 2nd Anniversary of the SIEVX tragedy
~~~
I received an email today from a girl who was doing a school project on
SIEVX. She asked me what happened to all the children - where are they now?
At first I was shocked that she asked this question, that she hadn't
realised that all the photos on the front page of this website are of
drowned children. But her question made me realise how little is still
known about SIEVX and how the government's refusal to release the list of
names it holds of the dead works to keep the enormity of this tragedy under
wraps...
There are at least 18 children who drowned on SIEVX who have now been dead
at least as long as they were alive:
Karrar, infant son of Najah Muhsin, aged 1
Ali Falah, infant son of Falah Al-Musawi, aged 1
Fatima Fawzi, infant daughter of Fawzi Qasim, aged 1
Zahra Al Battat, infant daughter of Dr Al Battat, aged 1
Alya Raad, daughter of Rokaya Satar, aged 2
Batoul Falah, daughter of Falah Al-Musawi, aged 2
Rakem Haidar, daughter of Haidar Ataa, aged 2
Doha Yasser Al Helou, daughter of Yasser Al Helou, aged 2
Mohammed, son of Hazam Al Rowaimi, aged 3
Marwa Al Helou, daughter of Yasser Al Helou, aged 3
Zahra Al Yassiry, daughter of Sayed Al Yassiry, aged 3
Ali Alsadi, son of Diya and Raged Al Saadi, aged 3
Moustafa Alrimahi, aged 4
Kauthar Raad, daughter of Rokaya Satar, aged 4
Rem Haidar, daughter of Haidar Ataa, aged 4
Zainab Al Battat, daughter of Dr Al Battat, aged 4
Mohammad Al Muntazar Alghazzi, aged 4
Alyaa Alghizzy, daughter of Ghazi Alghizzy, aged 4
This list will grow longer with every year that passes...
In the last twelve months hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been
lost in the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the recent earthquake in
India and Pakistan. So why four years after the event does the loss of 353
lives aboard an asylum-seeker vessel enroute to Australia's Christmas
Island, still burn in our hearts?
SIEVX was not a 'natural' disaster...
If a government is in the business of both 'beefing up' disruption (ie
increasing the danger in embarking on a people smuggler's boat) and scaling
back SOLAS (ie providing second class maritime safety response to the boats
of asylum seekers) then how can that government not have blood on its hands
when a boat sinks inside its border protection surveillance zone?
http://sievx.com/archives/2005/20051017.shtml
===========================
5. The Inaugural SIEVX Awards 2005
===========================
Presented on SIEVX DAY October 19, 2005 the fourth anniversary of the
sinking of SIEVX. These, the inaugural SIEVX AWARDS acknowledging the work
and effort of organisations and people who have given freely of their time
and expertise to honour those whose lives were lost and give comfort to
those people whose lives have been cruelly altered by the tragedy of SIEVX.
There will be no gala dinner, speeches, fanfares or drum rolls for these
awards. The recipients listed here will simply receive their award citation
as an attachment to an email which they can frame and display if that is
their wish.
The list of awards and recipients appears below starting with the two major
awards.
THE SIEVX AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE
• Goes to sievx.com in recognition of the most comprehensive and objective
body of work. Unique, independent and scholarly, the sievx.com website is
the virtual encyclopaedia of the tragedy of SIEVX. It is the only detailed
archive on the subject. The sievx.com commentaries, such as 'SIEVX & the
DFAT Cable: The Conspiracy of silence' provide primary research based on
thorough investigation of carefully checked and footnoted material.
Sievx.com has led the call for the release of the names of those who died.
http://sievx.com/
THE SIEVX AWARD FOR COURAGE
• Goes to AMAL BASRY who believed she had survived the sinking of SIEVX
because she had to bear witness and she has never lost sight of that
responsibility. Each day she faces the demons that SIEVX left her with and
gathers her strength to stand strong in the face of them. Her gift is
communication and she moved hundreds to understand the lived experience of
the SIEVX tragedy.
THE SIEVX AWARDS FOR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
• SENATOR JOHN FAULKNER for his political oratory and intense questioning
of witnesses at the CMI inquiry and in Senate Committees. “And what about
the vessel now known as SIEVX, part of the people-smuggling operation of
the notorious people smuggler Abu Quassey? That vessel set sail on 18
October 2001 and sank on 19 October 2001, drowning 353 people, including
142 women and 146 children. Were disruption activities directed against Abu
Quassey? Did these involve SIEVX? I intend to keep asking questions until I
find out. And, Mr Acting Deputy President, I intend to keep pressing for an
independent judicial inquiry into these very serious matters. At no stage
do I want to break, nor will I break, the protocols in relation to
operational matters involving ASIS or the AFP. But, those protocols were
not meant as a direct or an indirect licence to kill.” (Extract from
Senator John Faulkner's 3 Short Speeches to the Senate ~ 23-25 September 2002)
• SENATOR BOB BROWN for tenacity and steadfastness in continuing to demand
answers to fundamental questions about the sinking: i.e. the names of those
who drowned and the location where the tragedy occurred.
• SENATOR ANDREW BARTLETT of the Democrats who in October 2003 with the
support of the ALP and the Greens moved a motion which resulted in the
Senate expressing regret and sympathy for the loss of the 353 people who
were on their way to join family and loved ones waiting in Australia. It
was an historic moment - the first motion of condolence for any asylum
seeker in our country's recent history and it was ignored by the Australian
media. "It will be a day and a date I will always remember, because 19
October 2001, the day that all those children drowned, was the same day
that my first and only daughter, Lillith, was born. She is, in my view, the
most beautiful girl ever born - I apologise to everybody else who might
have children, but that is just the way it is and to think that, at the
same time that she was being born and all the wonder that goes with that,
there were 146 children whose lives were about to end as they struggled in
the water in such fear and terror. It is indeed a tragedy, and it is one
that should be remembered." (extract from his speech)
• FORMER SENATOR JACINTA COLLINS for the hard work she did seeking the
truth about SIEVX during and after the CMI Inquiry and in keeping the
issue alive and trying to call the government to account.
THE SIEVX AWARDS COMMUNICATION
• THE JOURNALISTS in the mainstream media who placed morality and truth
above their professional or political safety to write fearlessly about
SIEVX. They know who they are and Australians owe them a great debt in
these troubled times.
• KEYSAR TRAD for translating the survivors’ accounts and providing an
English transcript of a videotape that was made of the survivors of the
SIEVX disaster at Bogor in the week following the wreck in October 2001.
This translation was the key to understanding the terrible tragedy of
SIEVX, life altering to those who read it and attracting all who later took
up the cause of SIEVX.
http://sievx.com/articles/disaster/KeysarTradTranscript.html
• PROJECT SAFECOM and AUSNEWS who since the beginning have distributed news
and information about SIEVX
http://www.safecom.org.au http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ausnews/
• TONY KEVIN for bringing the SIEVX issue before the Senate for
investigation and for dedicating his retirement
to SIEVX. http://tonykevin.com/
• THE SIEVX SCRIBES They were there from the moment they were aware of the
sinking, before the doomed boat had a name. MARILYN SHEPHERD, KATE
WILDERMUTH, KAY KAN, HELEN TAIT and many others are the scribes of SIEVX.
They have worked individually and collectively to keep SIEVX in the public
consciousness. In the letters pages and feedback columns of the media and
on the internet they have taken on bullies, heroes, reporters and
politicians. They have assisted writers with useful research. Many of them
have not had a day off since October 2001.
THE SIEVX COMMUNITY AWARDS
• ASYLUM SEEKER RESOURCE CENTRE for the kindness and caring they have shown
survivors and families of SIEVX who have needed their help. Since opening
their doors in June 2001, the ASRC has become the largest provider of aid,
advocacy and health services for asylum seekers in Australia. They work
directly with asylum seekers, both living in our community and detention,
to provide direct aid and support. They also campaign and lobby on behalf
of asylum seekers and all Australians who want to change the unjust asylum
seeker related policies that Australia has adopted. Most importantly, in
times of despair and hopelessness, they offer comfort, friendship, hope and
respite.
http://www.asrc.org.au/
• KEN PARTRIDGE In Tasmania at the 2002 SIEVX Memorial, people strung lines
of dedicated cards and brought flowers to Princes Park opposite Chalmers.
Under great oaks they sheltered for readings, while rain squalls buffeted
the little boat cards. Ken from the bell tower rang out a peal which began
the people on a silent procession to Civic Square. 353 peals rang out. And
Ken alone, counting on a hand held register, felt his heart rendered with
the physical effort and the profundity of each toll.
• JAMES BOYCE and THE HOBART CITY COUNCIL. There is a special seat at a key
point on a lovely and popular habourside nature walk to the Cornelian Bay
cemetery. People can sit there and look out to sea remembering the 353 of
SIEVX. James Boyce, a member of TasForRefugees wrote to the council [Hobart
City Council] to get permission for the SIEVX memorial and the full council
supported it. The Lord Mayor Rob Valentine has been especially supportive.
• SUE HOFFMAN and INDRA KAUR have both played a big part in helping
bereaved family members of SIEVX victims living in Perth to set up the
incorporated association Family of SIEVX, an initiative of husbands and
fathers living in Australia who lost entire families when the boat
sank. Sue deserves special mention, having helped raise funds for three
bereaved men to attend the Brisbane trial of Khaleed Daoed, an alleged
member of the Abu Quassey people smuggling syndicate. Sue also travelled
with the men to offer support and assistance during their time in Brisbane.
Because of this venture, it is very likely that Family of SIEVX Inc. will
make contact with most of the SIEVX survivors scattered around the world in
faraway countries such as Finland, Canada and Norway which will greatly
assist the Association achieve its mission statement.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FamilyofSIEVX/
• STEVE BIDDULPH for his effort in attempting to establish a physical
memorial to the SIEVX tragedy on Australian soil.
http://sievxmemorial.com/ http://stevebiddulph.com/
THE SIEVX AWARDS FOR ARTS AND MUSIC
• KATE DURHAM for her Beauty and Cruelty exhibition which was dedicated to
the courageous Amal Basry and featured a wall devoted to SIEVX covered with
130 small paintings of faces and bodies in the ocean. "People cannot
connect emotionally to events if there are no pictures," says the artist
and is determined to continue until she has painted all 353 people who
drowned, no matter how long it takes.
http://www.katedurham.com/
• PAT HOFFIE for her installation entitled Drift, constructed as a memorial
to those who died in the SIEVX. It consists of a large cardboard wedge
built to the scale of the refugee boat, with wall drawings representing
each individual it carried, contrasted with the anonymous, bureaucratic
codename it was given.
http://sievx.com/articles/mentions/2005/20051013PatHoffie.html
• THOSE BLOODY MCKENNAS for their song about SIEVX - 'Time and Tide'
online at sievx.com
http://www.thosebloodymckennas.com/
• MIA DYSON for her song about Sondos Ismael - 'Christmas Island' - online
at sievx.com
http://www.miadyson.com/
THE SIEVX FOUNDER’S AWARDS
• CYNDY HIGGINS RICH for her indefatigable and unwavering support of SIEVX
and as the United States co-ordinator of JANNAH THE SIEVX MEMORIAL
• LES BLOUGH the Editor of the prestigious E-zine AXIS OF LOGIC for his
unstinting support of SIEVX and JANNAH THE SIEVX MEMORIAL
http://www.axisoflogic.com/
• MARC PARENT the courageous Canadian internet human rights advocate who
has done so much to get the story of SIEVX around the world. Publisher and
editor of Crimes and Corruptions of the New World Order.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/
• MATT HAMON whose internet artistry, understanding of all things technical
and compassion gave JANNAH THE SIEVX MEMORIAL it’s unique visual identity.
• LYNDA SMITH and ARIEL SMITH Lynda and her son Ariel have taken up the
baton of JANNAH THE SIEVX MEMORIAL during difficult times.
The SIEVX AWARDS (C) MARY DAGMAR DAVIES 2005
========================================
6. Terminally ill migrant sues over immigration detention
========================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Tuesday, October 18, 2005. 7:48pm (AEST)
By Andrew Fowler, ABC Investigative Unit
A man who lived in Australia for 31 years but had not taken out citizenship
is seeking compensation from the Immigration Department (DIMIA) after his
visa was revoked and he was held in immigration detention.
It is another setback for the Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone's policy
of deporting troublesome migrants, even though they have spent most of
their lives in Australia.
The Federal Court has ruled the policy illegal, a decision the Minister is
seeking leave to appeal against.
It has now emerged that the department took months after the ruling before
telling a Scottish man dying of cancer that he could remain in the country.
Gerard Coleman, who now just has months to live, and his family came to
Australia on the assisted migration scheme when he was 11.
The family returned to Scotland but seven years later they made their way
back to Australia on the very same scheme, but this time they stayed for good.
Mr Coleman has spent his whole working life here but during this time he
also acquired a criminal record, including a jail sentence.
He served his time, but several months later received a message from the
Immigration Department.
His visa had been revoked on character ground because the Immigration
Minister had decided he was not a fit and proper person to live in Australia.
Mr Coleman was told to leave the country but was by now receiving treatment
for throat cancer.
Arrested
In February 2003, when Mr Coleman had failed to leave Australia Immigration
Department officials arrested him.
He was taken to Sydney's Villawood Detention Centre.
He remained there for two-and-a-half years while DIMIA explored ways to
deport him.
He did not have a passport and DIMIA needed one to deport him back to
Scotland.
His lawyer, Michaela Byers says every two weeks for the past two years they
came to him with a British passport application and asked him to sign it
and he refused.
"On one occasion they attempted to force the British Embassy to issue a
passport," she said.
"They rang Mr Coleman in detention and asked him if he wanted the passport
issued and he said 'no', so they refused to issue a passport to the
Australian Department of Immigration."
By June, Mr Coleman's cancer had been identified as recurrent, advanced and
incurable.
Doctors scheduled surgery for July.
Ms Byers says he has had about half of his tongue removed.
"And I believe some of the floor of his mouth and some of his vocal chords
have been removed," she said.
Landmark ruling
At about the same time a fellow detainee was having better luck.
He had won a landmark decision in the Federal Court - overturning a
magistrates court ruling that he could be returned to Sweden - even though
he had lived in Australia all but a month of his life - and was released
from immigration detention immediately.
The Federal Court was damning in its decision, stating: "apart from the
dire punishment of the individual involved, it presumes that Australia can
export its problems elsewhere".
DIMIA failed to advise Mr Coleman of this legal precedent, one that could
significantly affect his case. Instead he remained locked up.
It took DIMIA another one-and-a-half months, until August 23 to release Mr
Coleman from detention, but even then he was not completely free, instead
being held on home detention.
It was not until just recently that the Department of Immigration told him
he had the right to live in Australia as an absorbed person.
"I was told when I was having chemotherapy, the day I started chemotherapy,
they rang up my mother and told her I was an absorbed person," Mr Coleman said.
"Now this was after I had the prognosis and everything, so they took their
time."
'Legally complex'
The Immigration Department said in a statement late today that the Federal
Court decision had been legally complex.
The department said it had reassessed cases as quickly as possible.
Ms Byers is now filing a compensation claim against DIMIA.
"Well I believe there's false imprisonment or wrongful detention," he said.
"There may also be a case for failure to exercise a duty of care when he
was in their care in detention in that he may not have received proper
treatment for cancer."
Mr Coleman, though, with just a matter of months to live, the compensation
is mainly academic.
"It's terminal, even with chemotherapy, I might only last about three
months," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1485243.htm
==============================
7. Three weeks until new year's day, 1984
==============================
From Margo Kingston's Webdiary
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
by Kerri Browne
Australians have three weeks to protect our human rights for the next ten
years, or more. Once the legislation is passed, there is no turning back.
Dissent will effectively be outlawed.
We can't let this happen.
2005 is the year to read or reread George Orwell's 1984 and check out for
clues on what seems to be happening to us right now.
Webdiary is committed to using all the skills and resources available to us
to stop the legislation being passed without thorough, honest and
transparent debate across the nation. The contribution of all Webdiarists
is vital.
Below is a substantial collection of links and resources collated by the
extraordinary staff of the Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library
giving background to the new legislation. Webdiarists, please, contribute
any and all links to further information and opinion both in support and
opposition to the legislation. They will be added to the list below and
used for informing research and debate on this issue that affects all
Australians now and in the future. And send in your reviews and other
contributions on 1984 in 2005.
More at
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/three_weeks_unt.html
=============================
8. The real threat to the life of the nation
=============================
From Margo Kingston's Webdiary
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
by Brian Walters
Brian Walters SC is the President of Liberty Victoria. He wrote this piece
for Webdiary in response to Janet Albrechtsen's article in the Australian
last Wednesday. Webdiary has been reporting on anti-terrorism legislation
since 2002.
--------
by Brian Walters
In her column on 12th October:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16889146%255E32522,00.html
...Janet Albrechtsen criticises my discussion paper on human rights and
terrorism
http://www.libertyvictoria.org.au/docs/TerrorismHumanRights220905.pdf
, which the committee of Liberty Victoria has approved. But her
representation of it is narrow and misleading.
Albrechtsen accuses me of having a secret agenda because I am a former
Greens candidate. In fact, although I am proud of my involvement in the
Greens, I have never stood for parliament. Liberty Victoria has active
members from most political parties, and we welcome the creativity of
members of the community from a wide range of political positions. We
conduct an event each year in honour of the late (Liberal) Senator Alan
Missen, at which the former Fraser government Minister Fred Chaney gave an
inspiring address this year. Petro Georgiou will address our AGM shortly.
Liberty Victoria has criticized - and praised - the legislation and
decisions of governments of left and right. Our only agenda is to uphold
internationally-recognized human rights and the rule of law.
But what a pathetic approach to public life - anyone who has a commitment
to a political party cannot participate in public affairs because they have
a secret agenda! Does Albrechtsen make the same point about those who share
her own political views?
Albrechtsen likes to style herself as a woman of the Australian people: in
her article she couches her opinions with phrases like "average
Australian", "mainstream opinion", "community welfare" and "us simple
folk". Does she take us for fools? And as a member of the ABC Board, does
she appreciate the importance of free speech - that is, giving voice to the
broad range of opinions in our community?
Not everyone in Australia shares Albrechtsen's apocalyptic view of our
times. Many of us support human rights and value the rule of law. But
Albrechtsen's appeals to majoritarianism reveal a dangerous flaw in her
argument. The majority is not always right. At the height of his power
Hitler was probably supported by the majority in his country. It is
important to hear minority views, and not to confuse majority opinion with
truth.
Albrechtsen has not dealt with the issues in relation to terror laws at all
- merely attacked me, and attacked others who are confronting this issue.
In so doing, she trivializes the issue of terrorism and our response to it.
Minority groups in Australia are under attack in ways we have not seen for
a long time.
The government's raft of anti-terror laws prior to September 2005 were
seriously flawed, and had been directed against Muslim groups in our
community. They were legally required to be subject to formal review "as
soon as practicable" after 5th July 2005.
Before any review was convened, and without any opportunity for public
debate or even discussion in his own party room, the Prime Minister
announced a fresh tranche of anti-terror laws, including "control orders"
which allow a person to be subject to the control of authorities (including
the use of electronic tagging) for twelve months without charge, and
"preventative detention orders" which give power to the authorities to hold
persons for fourteen days without charge. This is a serious departure from
long-recognized foundations of the rule of law.
Control orders have been copied from the UK, where they were introduced
earlier this year, after the House of Lords found that the detention of
terror suspects without charge was contrary to human rights. As Lord
Hoffmann said in that decision:
Terrorist crime, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of
government or our existence as a civil community.
The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living
in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not
from terrorism but from laws such as these.
That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for
parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.
In March this year, the UK "suspects" (some of them have been identified as
such by those subjected to torture) were released from detention but made
subject to control orders. International human rights groups, including
Amnesty International, have roundly criticized this, noting that Britain
now has a number of confused people, who do not speak English well, and who
are not accused of any criminal offence, confined by electronic tags to
house arrest and made to feel pariahs in their own community.
One person subject to a control order was jailed when he left his home to
seek medical attention.
None of this stopped the July bombings in London, and arguably this sort of
conduct by the authorities increases the risks of terrorism, because it
breeds alienation and allows the motivations of potential terrorists to fester.
Now we in Australia have adopted the same model. We will impose control
orders which deny people the right to work, use the telephone, or the
internet - people who have committed no offence and who have not planned
any offence.
There will be no adequate judicial supervision of these measures. Judicial
authorities will have to decide on the basis of the reasonable suspicion of
the officer coming before them. That reasonable suspicion will normally be
founded on what they have been told by another officer. No court will be
able to test the primary facts upon which that suspicion is based.
The State and Territory leaders fell into line without a whimper, some
enthusiastically embracing these laws. They had been briefed by
intelligence personnel, but not by any human rights experts. They are
terrified of being seen to be soft on terror.
In bringing in these anti-democratic measures, the government has tried to
dispense with the public debate which is basic to democratic process,
actually castigating Mr Stanhope because he had the temerity to put this
legislation to the people for their consideration.
State parliaments, as well as the Federal parliament, should not pass laws
like this, and certainly not without a full debate.
The day after COAG agreed to these measures the Attorney-General
foreshadowed even tougher measures. Since then the Prime Minister has
advocated a vast expansion of ASIO. Once on this downhill slide,
governments move with a self-propelling momentum to ever harsher laws.
The politics of fear and racism are dangerous for our community. The
historical record is rich with examples of governments becoming oppressive
in the name of making us more secure.
And notice how, as they destroy long-standing traditions that are so
valuable in Australian civic life, the government and those who support
them wrap themselves in the flag and iconic images of our nation, hiding
their true antipathy to our way of life.
Albrechtsen's line is always predictable, but it is nonetheless dangerous
for Australia. Her "aw shucks" nonsense should not disguise that she thinks
it's fine to hand away rights that have been fought for over centuries. She
wants us to concentrate on the right to live in freedom, safe from personal
harm. But human rights are of a piece. You can't pick and choose. How, for
example, can someone who is imprisoned and interrogated, solely on
suspicion of possibly holding information of interest to ASIO without
ability to communicate where they are or why to their family, be said to be
enjoying a right to live in freedom, safe from personal harm?
The demonstrated and manifest incompetence and contempt by authorities when
exercising powers over citizens (Tampa, Rau, Solon) means that the powers
conferred in these laws will deprive innocent people of their personal
freedom and security. And if freedom and security is undermined by the
State, where else can we look to find it?
Terrorists want their threat to be magnified as much as possible. We do
well not to fall for this. Here in Australia, although no one in this
country has died from a terrorist attack since 1978, we have spent over $5
billion on security since September 2001, to say nothing of the increased
expense to businesses.
Protection of our human rights is our greatest source of security.
Abrogation of civil liberties does not make us safer. It gives a win to
terrorists and will encourage them to keep going. It amounts to destroying
our freedom in order to save it.
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/the_real_threat.html
=====================================
9. The Howard counter-terrorism legislation, and me
=====================================
From Margo Kingston's Webdiary
18 October 2005
by Tony Kevin
Tony Kevin is a retired diplomat, author of the award winning A Certain
Maritime Incident - the Sinking of SIEV X and regular Webdiarist. His last
piece for Webdiary was ADF chain of command - accountability v subservience
which followed from Defending Canberra: who you gonna call? Tony's website
is here.
by Tony Kevin
In his brave and public-spirited act on Friday night of making public the
proposed raft of counter-terrorism legislation that John Howard had laid
confidentially before Australian state premiers a few weeks ago, in an
obvious effort to build political leverage behind the proposals, the ACT's
Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has done all Australian citizens and residents
a great service. Here are links to his website and the draft bill.
Thank you, Jon Stanhope.
It is not as if we did not already have a pretty good idea of what the
package of proposed legislation would contain. We knew its philosophy and
assumptions from many speeches, interviews, and background briefings to
journalists, from John Howard and Phillip Ruddock and senior officials like
Mick Keelty (AFP) and Paul O'Sullivan (ASIO). Pro-government commentators
like Gerard Henderson and Neil James (ADA) have done their bit to prepare
us for the alleged necessity and benign nature of the new laws. Weak
populist political leaders like Beazley and the Labor state premiers have
helped to soften us up.
Too many of us have already been swamped and brainwashed into accepting the
alleged inevitability of all this serious erosion of our liberties, as the
claimed lesser evil to feared acts of terrorism. The case for this has not
been plausibly made - it has simply been asserted by the men in power now
and rolled over us, led by a man who says defiantly on this, as on
everything else that is important to Australians "Trust me, my record is my
guarantee". The trouble is, Howard has a rotten record of prime
ministership and of truth. This man is a liar, a dissembler and a racist
from the beginning of his public life.
Even Jon Stanhope to an extent succumbed to the pressure to fall into line
at Howard's cleverly stage-managed security briefing of premiers in
Canberra on Tuesday 27 September, while a pair of RAAF Blackhawk
helicopters circled ominously around Canberra all day, to drive home the
terrorist threat perception that Howard wanted to inculcate in us: God
knows what lies were told to the premiers on the day about the reason for
the Blackhawks being there. Perhaps they were lied to that there had been
some kind of security tip-off? Now we ordinary citizens are told by
ADF-affiliated Webdiary correspondents that it was a routine training
exercise for visiting defence cadets. And pigs can fly. ….
I don't blame Stanhope for blinking at that point - it must have been a day
of enormous psychological pressure on all the state premiers.
But Jon Stanhope has bounced back now and his natural courage and animal
spirits have reasserted themselves. We now have a public document - a draft
law - to read and focus our thoughts on. And that has released my courage too.
We now can know why eminent Australian lawyers like Alastair Nicholson, ACT
Justice Terry Higgins, John North of the Australian Law Council, Terry
O'Gorman of the Australian Civil Liberties Union and Cameron Murphy of the
NSW Council for Civil Liberties, have expressed such grave and well-founded
misgivings about these proposed laws. We can read the draft law ourselves.
I will not try to reproduce or summarise here the thorough legal analyses
that such eminent Australian lawyers like those cited above are offering to
the Australian public. These writers - and there will be more - show us how
injurious these laws will be to our most cherished democratic freedoms, so
hard-won in our brief Australian colonial history and in our prior
centuries of British history. Read what they say and reflect on it, if you
value your freedoms.
No, instead I am going to address here the very personal question that will
face those of of us like me, who will want to continue to contribute to
democratic public discourse in Australia after these laws come into effect.
What will these laws do to the way people like me exercise our rights to
take part in Australia's public political conversation as Australian
citizens, residents and voters?
Such a personal affirmation has been turning around in my mind for some
weeks. I am trying honestly to address the question - how will this
legislation affect me in my public life as an Australian citizen? And I
intend now to make my answer public, because I think to do so is in the
public interest.
So this, if you like, is my Wittenberg Declaration. For those whose history
is a bit rusty, Martin Luther dealt the symbolic blow that began the
Reformation when he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses against church corruption
to the door of the Wittenberg Church in 1517. In the statement that
follows, I am nailing my declaration of rights to the present Australian
national security state's door - a state that is now both corrupt and
dangerous to its citizens.
For the past few years, I have exercised my democratic citizen rights
freely, by speaking and writing in books, newspaper articles and letters,
and on my own and other websites. I have expressed some strongly dissident
views, touching often on delicate areas of national security and foreign
policy, relating to my former professional knowledge and expertise. I have
strongly criticised some actions and practices of the present Australian
national state, most significantly:
• Asking questions, that are well-based in evidence, as to whether the
sinking of SIEV X on 19 October 2001, which killed 353 innocent
asylum-seekers mostly women and children , might have involved Australian
government agencies engaged in criminal life-threatening covert disruption
operations - and whether such facts of state criminality may have been
deliberately covered up since then.
• Condemning the coalition decision to invade Iraq in 2003, outside the
rules-based UN Security Council system, and the dire consequences that the
unlawful coalition decision has had for Iraq and its people, and for
Australia and its people.
• Condemning the SAS secret commencement of invasive warfare inside Iraq,
over 30 hours before Howard announced we were at war, as an illegal launch
of war under the international laws of war.
• Condemning Australia's military involvement as a coalition partner in the
great war crime and crime against humanity that was the coalition forces'
methodical destruction of the Iraqi city of Fallujah in October 2004, when
thousands of civilians were killed and 200,000 rendered homeless from a
city of 250.000.
• Condemning the Australian government's betrayal of the Australian people
in ramming through parliament an unequal, exploitative and unnecessary FTA
with the USA that will damage the lives of ordinary Australians.
• Condemning ongoing examples of anti-Islamic prejudice and cruelty in
Australia, in which I include the proposed terrorism laws.
• Urging a greater public understanding and addressing of the political
root causes of the present wave of global terrorism involving small numbers
of enraged Muslims, while at no time do I support any such acts.of terrorism.
I have never and would never support any terrorist acts, because my moral
philosophy rests on the principle that the end does not justify the means,
and that belief of itself would prevent my supporting terrorism even under
the worst provocations. I also note that such a belief is common to all the
world's great religions and philosophies. I happen to be a Catholic, but my
position would be the same if I were a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu,
Confucian or atheist.
I have never, and would never, associate with any people who might in my
view be at risk of inclinations to engage in acts of terrorism. I have
never personally encountered such people and will not seek to do so.
Yet I can well see how some of my writing over the past few years might be
construed by certain kinds of suspicious or prejudiced minds in Australia's
national security apparatus to be some kind of incitement to terrorism
under the proposed laws; or how, even if this were not believed, some such
officials might think it politically useful to present me with such a
question. The intention of such interrogation might be a seriously based
professional desire to check facts, or it might stem simply from a desire
to intimidate me from expressing my political views: to fire a warning shot
across my bows, so to speak.
The justifying logic would be simple to construct for a naïve, fearful and
credulous public. Since I have accused the Australian state of being
involved in possible acts of state terrorism in Iraq or around our maritime
borders, and since I have exposed such disturbing questions to general
public access, what is my defence if officials in national security
authority in Australia were to call me in for questioning, to accuse me of
inciting acts of terror by the kinds of public writing I put out?
Worse than this: if such officials were to claim to me - and I would have
no way of testing such a claim - that they already knew that some person
had contemplated committing a terrorist act as a result of having read
something I had written, could that make me some sort of unknowing
accomplice in or inciter of terrorism? I don't think it could, and I hope a
decent pro bono publico civil rights lawyer could put up many convincing
reasons why not, but someone who had a legal power to detain me under this
new law might think it worth a try sometime even if only to give me a
scare. After all, they kicked Scott Parkin out of Australia on charges no
more credible.
Could such security officials on the basis of what is on my website deprive
me of my liberty, for hours days weeks or months, under the proposed new
law? Could they hold me incommunicado for as long as they wanted in order
to question me under stress, and deprive me of my right to complain of this
treatment publicly afterwards ? Could they try to break my spirit in this way?
As I thought about this, I discovered something interesting about myself. I
know that such an experience of being detained and told to keep silent
about it afterwards would infuriate me beyond measure, and I very much
doubt that I could keep silent about it afterwards, even if that meant the
risk of being taken back into custody, and even with the possibility of
criminal indictment and jail sentencing for that very offence of revealing
the fact of having been so treated.
Because I don't think I could live with myself if I were to let myself be
cowed and humiliated in that way. I would have ceased to be a free man. I
would have become a political castrato. Or a defenceless boy who had been
abused by a pedophile in a position of authority and trust, and warned to
keep quiet about it afterwards or face dire consequences. That's a line I
could not cross, if my life means anything.
So here is the paradox I want to share with my readers. I am a law-abiding
retired former senior public servant. I am not a criminal. I am a loyal
Australian. I freely admit that I despise and loathe John Howard, for what
I think he is doing to my country, but it is my democratic right to make
those judgements about an Australian Prime Minister. I also despise Kim
Beazley for his cowardice and hypocrisy.
But I can now see clearly how this law, clumsily or vindictively applied,
could feasibly send me to prison as a criminal. Because I am now pretty
sure that I would defy this law, if I were placed in the position it could
place me in of being wrongfully detained and then being told to keep quiet
about it.
And, since I will not be self-censoring my public writing as a result of
this law, it is now possible that I may find myself in that position, once
this law is passed as it probably will be passed.
So here is my Wittenburg challenge to Howard and his minions. If any of our
national security agents ever want to have a private civil conversation
with me about any of my writing, at a time and place convenient to me, I
would civilly cooperate with them as a good citizen. But if they harass,
intimidate or try to embarrass me in any way under this proposed new law, I
would be likely to make those facts public, regardless of possible adverse
consequences to me.
I find the possibility of secret temporary arrest or detention for secret
interrogation, that I was not allowed to publicly reveal and protest about
afterwards, abhorrent and disgusting. And I see that it is precisely this
possible eventuality that would be likely to push me into making a public
martyr of myself. Because I am old and stubborn enough to think that the
cause mattered enough to the public interest to make such action necessary.
Australia has not had prisoners of conscience yet. This proposed law,
foolishly applied to me, could make me into one. How many others are in
such a situation? I hope I am not the only one. I hope others would take
similar stands if necessary.
At the same time I know realistically that most people do not have the
economic safety net I would have to make possible such a protest. . My main
income is my fixed government superannuation pension, which I earned from
30 years of loyal and efficient public service to Australia. That pension
will continue to support my family, before and after my death, and whether
or not I find myself in prison. Most people do not have that level of
family security. Most people have careers and career reputations to
protect, and dependent families to support. Or they do have security, but
are paralysed by fear of public embarrassment.
That is why the odd people like me - for whom such a personal sacrifice is
conceivable, even if unpleasant to contemplate - will contemplate such acts
of public protest, for the sake of the public good of our society. Because
if we do not exert our freedoms, and take personal risks in their defence,
we will undoubtedly lose them.
The government's apologists will either mock or pretend to ignore this
statement. But I hope you - readers to whom I have sent it - will consider
its implications. .Tonight on SBS News I heard John North, Chair of the
Australian Law Council, warn of Australia's descent towards a police state.
This is actually happening now. And that is why I am releasing this
statement tonight.
This statement is not offered in a spirit of satire or irony - it is no
April Fools' Day joke. I am utterly serious in every word that appears
here, and I am ready to be held to account for these words. Because our
society needs to think about these proposed laws in such concrete and
personal terms, if we are to remain free.
These proposed laws are not about somebody else. They are not only about
intimidating Australian Muslims, though the proposed laws will bear down
especially hard on them initially. Later, the net will widen, to intimidate
all of us.
While there is still perhaps time, make your views known on this pernicious
proposed legislation. Tell your MPs and Senators - of whatever party - how
it affects your freedom. Tell Barnaby Joyce and Steve Fielding. Tell Petro
Georgiou. Tell Greg Combet. Tell Julia Gillard. Tell your state premiers to
review their thinking and get behind Stanhope. Tell the media. Tell your
church leaders. Don't let this evil man John Howard succeed in this further
attack on our democratic freedoms and values in Australia. He'll try and
slide it in behind the industrial legislation while all our attention and
public energy is focused on that. Don't let him get away with it. Protest,
because the defence of our living in freedom depends on you protesting.
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/the_howard_coun.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 115643900, 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
.
|
|
 |
|
