|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 20 October 2005
|
Project SafeCom
|
Oct 19, 2005 15:37 PDT
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 20 October 2005
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. SIEV-X: still drowning in spin
2. SIEV X mourners remember the nameless dead
3. Petro Georgiou's reply to the terrorism Bills
4. A betrayal of trust and liberty
5. Report says terror laws breach rights
6. The triumph of paranoia over experience
7. PM plays down Georgiou's criticism of anti-terror laws
8. Son deported despite sick mother's plea
9. Four years on, an "Aussie" missing boat sparks massive search
10. DEMOCRATS MEDIA: SIEV-X Anniversary
11. Drowned asylum seekers to be remembered
12. [Robert] Fisk in Australia
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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. SIEV-X: still drowning in spin
=======================
From Margo Kingston's Webdiary
by Jack H Smit
18 October 2005
Project SafeCom Inc.
Today four years ago a boat on its way through the sometimes treacherous
waters off the Indonesian coast sunk within the Australian Government's
Search and Rescue Zone for ships in distress. Some people were rescued.
Several people cancelled their plans to board the massively overcrowded
vessel - and are alive today as a result. Three hundred and fifty-three
people, mostly Iraqi and Afghan asylum seekers, including 146 children,
drowned.
More at:
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/sievx_still_dro.html
=====================================
2. SIEV X mourners remember the nameless dead
=====================================
The Age
By Andra Jackson
October 20, 2005
FOUR years ago Bahja Hassan lost an uncle, his wife and their five
children, aged four to 11, when the SIEV X sank.
Ms Hassan, who was born in Iraq and now lives in Whittlesea, is in no doubt
over who is to blame for her loss.
"I blame the Australian Navy and the Indonesian smugglers for their
deaths," she said yesterday, at the commemoration of a memorial for the 353
asylum seekers who lost their lives when the boat sank.
Only 45 people survived the tragedy, rescued 20 hours later by Indonesian
fishing vessels.
A Melbourne Islamic leader yesterday challenged the Australian Navy to
explain why it didn't go to the rescue of the SIEV X as the vessel,
overloaded with people, started taking water.
Sheikh Issa, from the Islamic Council of Victoria, said he understood the
vessel sank close to Australian waters where the Australian Navy was operating.
"So if there was a willingness to save them, that could have been done.
"We remember how there was a ship called Tampa. That ship saved a lot of
people," he said, referring to the Norwegian ship that rescued 433 asylum
seekers a month earlier.
"Why was the Tampa path not emulated by the Australian Navy?"
The tragedy should be highlighted in international forums, he said. "The
refugees have every right to be taken care of."
He said nearly all the victims were Muslims, mainly from "wrecked
countries" such as Iraq. "The community is very disappointed at this
tragedy and the lack of response from the Government. They did not show any
sympathy."
At a simple ceremony in the Flagstaff Gardens, he read from the Koran and
said "in Islamic literature, we call such people martyrs because they were
coming for noble ideas … to have a better life for their families."
Sheikh Issa also called on the Australian Federal Police to relent on their
refusal to release the names of the dead. "People say there is this number
353 but why are they kept nameless?" he said.
He proposed their names be recorded on a memorial for relatives to see.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Robert Hill referred to the Select
Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident report, which found extensive
maritime surveillance on Australia's northern approaches was under way at
the time.
On October 19, 2001, the helicopter from HMAS Arunta was assigned to
searching an area where the SIEV X survivors were waiting for help, but
turned back after running low on fuel.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/siev-x-mourners-remember-the-nameless-dead/2005/10/19/1129401318444.html
=================================
3. Petro Georgiou's reply to the terrorism Bills
=================================
Multiculturalism does not breed terrorism
by Petro Georgiou MP
Federal Member for Kooyong
From Margo Kingston's Webdiary
18 October 2005
Thank you for the invitation to make this presentation.
The issue I propose to focus on tonight is this: is multiculturalism part
of the solution to terrorism or part of the problem?
The main thrust of my argument is as follows:
First, Australia faces a threat of terrorism which has ideological and
organisational links to the terrorist outrages in New York, London, Madrid,
Bali and other places in recent years and weeks.
Second, federal and state governments have an obligation to respond to
these threats and protect the lives and well-being of all who live here.
Third, governments must ensure that their responses are proportionate to
the threat and that in the course of defending the democratic values which
terrorism attacks, they do not inadvertently betray them.
Fourth, assertions that multiculturalism spawns or sustains terrorism, and
must therefore be abolished to combat it, are wrong.
Finally, a strong commitment to multiculturalism in principle and practice
should be an element of our counter-terrorism strategy.
Let me begin with a couple of working definitions for the purposes of this
discussion.
Full speech at Webdiary:
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/multiculturalis.html
Speech also posted at http://www.safecom.org.au/georgiou-multiculturalism.htm
=======================
4. A betrayal of trust and liberty
=======================
The Age
October 20, 2005
The Government and Opposition assume we cannot fight terrorism while
adhering to principles of democracy and justice. Their folly is a grave
threat to our freedom, writes Malcolm Fraser.
TODAY'S world is preoccupied with terrorism. How we in democracies respond
is critical to the maintenance of our own values and to the ideals of
liberty. There is a danger that Islam, which is essentially a peaceful
religion, will be blamed for the actions of terrorists and that we will be
increasingly divided by religion and race.
We need to understand that terrorism is as old as the human race. The
Crusaders from Britain who fought against Islam in the Middle Ages; the
Spanish Inquisition; the IRA and the Protestant militias in Ireland all
practised terrorism; all were fundamentalist in their beliefs. The Chechens
wanting independence are terrorists. People in some parts of the
Philippines who want independence, were once called communists, then
freedom fighters and now terrorists. The Basques in Spain; the Belgians in
the Congo; the Portuguese and Spaniards in Central and South America; the
Red Army and the Red Brigades in Germany and Italy in the late '70s and
early '80s were all terrorists.
Many believe the war in Iraq has provided a new motivation for terrorists,
to end the occupation of an Islamic country by an infidel army. To
understand that there are different causes of terrorism is not to condone
but is essential if we wish to overcome and end terrorism.
Because civilisation as we know it was so nearly destroyed during the
Second World War, leaders of all major states believed they must strive and
work to achieve a better world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
was agreed in 1948. In the years since, protocols and conventions
established under it were designed to build a law-based world. The
International Criminal Court finally came into force on July 1, 2002. It is
more than unfortunate that our response to terrorism has reversed much of
that progress and leaders in too many countries do not seem to understand
that that is happening.
These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial
oversight, should not exist in any democratic country.
The ASIO legislation of 2002 underlines Australia's official indifference
to "due process" and to what until recently would have been regarded as
universally accepted Rule of Law. We're the only democratic nation, I am
advised, to legislate for the detention of people whom the authorities do
not suspect of any wrongdoing or even wrong thought.
In Australia, any of us can be detained merely because authorities believe
we might know something that we don't even know we know. The authorities do
not have to believe we are guilty of any crime, or are planning any crime,
or have consorted with any suspicious persons. How could such a law be
drafted by the Government and supported by the Labor opposition?
You can be detained for one week but then on a new warrant, another and
another and another week. Unless it is approved in the original warrant -
and why would ASIO do that? - you are not allowed to contact your wife,
your husband, your child, your mother, your father and, of course, not a
lawyer.
If you don't answer ASIO's questions satisfactorily, you can be charged and
subject to five years in jail. But the law is reasonable, it goes on to say
that if you don't know anything, then it's not an offence not to tell ASIO
anything. But you have to prove you didn't know anything and so the "onus
of proof" is reversed.
You can be asked to produce a paper and if you don't, you also go to jail
on prosecution for five years but the law goes on to say, being fair-minded
again, if you don't have such a paper, it's not an offence not to produce
it but you have to prove that you didn't have it. How do you prove you do
not have something that you do not even know exists. Again, "onus of proof"
is reversed.
If a journalist heard that you had been detained and sought to report it,
he would go to jail for five years. If a detained person were released and
talked to anyone about his or her experiences, subject to prosecution, five
years in jail.
This seems to be a law for secret behaviour by authorities, for making
somebody disappear. It is a law that one would expect in tyrannical
countries and not in Australia. Do we do nothing about it because we
believe it will not apply to ourselves? Do we believe it is only going to
apply to people of a different religion who look a bit different?
United States authorities and others have, time and again, denigrated those
in Guantanamo Bay. We have been told they are the worst of the worst, that
they are terrible people, that they do not deserve the normal protection of
the law.
People who make such comments clearly do not understand or believe in the
Rule of Law as it has evolved through the ages. They have taken such views
because they believe those in Guantanamo Bay and others are not "people"
like ourselves. In a different day and a different time, but within the
memories of many, we have heard those words before.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the presumption that all
people should have access to "due process" in a properly constituted legal
system is no longer valid in Australia. It is not reasonable just to blame
the Government alone for such laws. The Labor Party approved such laws. As
a consequence of the Government and the Opposition basically agreeing,
Australian law already provides for the abolition of "due process", of
habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. All this is already law.
Australian law, or lack of it, has already failed many individuals and
groups. Among these we can include: Aborigines; people held in the
Department of Immigration detention centres; an Australian citizen
deported; Australian citizens wrongly held in detention centres without
medical attention; a US citizen deported without "due process" and an
Australian citizen being tried before a military tribunal. By the detention
of the innocent, by the questioning of people known to be innocent by the
authorities, by the right confirmed by the High Court with a majority of
four to three, to keep a failed asylum seeker in jail for the term of his
natural life, if he could not be returned to his land of origin.
Authorities in Australia already have the capacity for the exercise of
extreme and arbitrary power without adequate judicial safeguards. Much of
this involves the gravest failure of administrative and ministerial
responsibilities. As shown in the Palmer and Comrie reports, the Department
of Immigration has been at the centre of much of it. Two ministers have
been in charge, neither minister is responsible. As far as one can tell,
nobody has been held accountable. The people involved appear not to have
mattered to the administration or to the Government.
Australia now has new proposals in front of it providing even greater power
to the police and to the Government. Attention should, in particular, be
turned to those provisions that allow for "preventive detention" and the
use of "control orders" to arrest and to limit and monitor the activities
of individuals. No cogent case has been made for the expansion of these
powers, except a general one that it is necessary to fight terrorism. It
would be reasonable to ask why, it would be reasonable to expect a
considered answer. Do we really believe these powers will be effective in
the fight against terrorism, or do we believe that the powers themselves
are likely to lead to a sense of grievance and of alienation? These are
powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight,
should not exist in any democratic country. If one says that they will not
be abused, I do not agree. If arbitrary power exists it will be abused.
All this has happened in a country which has not experienced a significant
terrorist incident for many years. What would be our Government's reaction
if this great city were tied up and disorganised by terrorist attacks
similar to those which recently occurred in London?
The Government is really saying on these issues, trust us, but no part of
the history of the Coalition's invasion and occupation of Iraq gives any
member of that coalition the right to say on these issues: "Trust us." We
were told there were weapons of mass destruction. There weren't.
More recently published British cabinet papers have made it clear that
President George Bush had made the decision to go to war seven or eight
months before the American people were told.
More particularly, after the Tampa, after the children overboard, the
experience and treatment of asylum seekers, the abandonment of Guantanamo
prisoner David Hicks, all suggest that any right to trust has been long
destroyed. Concerning the Tampa and children overboard, the Government knew
they were playing to the more fearful and conservative elements in the
Australian community and with great success. The Government also knows in
relation to terrorism that the public is concerned, even fearful and can be
made more fearful.
It may be brilliant politics but will such laws make Australia secure? By
its actions, the Government has long abandoned and lost the middle ground.
The rule of law and "due process" has been set aside.
These new proposals should be opposed. No strong case has been made that
they will be effective in the fight against terrorism. There are no real
safeguards. There is no adequate judicial review.
The laws should be opposed because the process itself is seriously flawed.
Instead of wide-ranging discussion the Government has sought to nobble the
field in secret and to prevent debate.
The Government and the Labor Party have both assumed that we cannot fight
terrorism and adhere to the basic principles of justice and democracy. They
have assumed that certain people are outside the law and do not deserve
justice. They are saying "Trust us" when they have given us every reason
not to trust them on peace and war and on security for our people.
If we stand silent in the face of discrimination and in violation of the
basic principles of humanity, then we betray our own principles and our way
of life. I regret that many believe they must throw basic rights overboard
to defend those same rights. Such views are wrong and will make it harder
to overcome terrorism.
Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983. This is part of the
Stephen Murray-Smith memorial lecture last night at the State Library of
Victoria.
http://theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-betrayal-of-trust-and-liberty/2005/10/19/1129401313656.html
=============================
5. Report says terror laws breach rights
=============================
The Age
October 19, 2005 - 3:04PM
The federal government's proposed anti-terrorism laws seriously limit
fundamental human rights and fail to provide effective judicial review
against violations, three international law experts said.
The trio, Professor of International Law at the University of NSW, Andrew
Byrnes, Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the ANU, Hilary
Charlesworth, and Gabrielle McKinnon, from the Regulatory Institutions
Network at the ANU, were asked by the ACT government to examine the draft laws.
In their report to ACT chief minister Jon Stanhope, they said the laws did
not meet four of the seven guarantees given by Prime Minister John Howard.
These included that the laws would be proportional, would comply with
Australia's international obligations, would have rigorous safeguards
against abuse and would be subject to judicial review.
They said it was unclear whether the laws met a further two of Mr Howard's
guarantees - that existing powers were inadequate and that they would be
effective against terrorism.
But they did meet one of the guarantees - that there would be a use-by
date, or sunset clause.
The laws, which are set to go to federal parliament on November 1, allow
preventative detention of terrorism suspects for up to two weeks and impose
control orders for up to 12 months.
"The laws seriously limit a number of fundamental human rights and are not
subject to an effective procedure of judicial review that provides adequate
safeguards against violations of ... human rights," the report said.
"It appears that these provisions breach a number of Australia's
obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR)."
The preventative detention system breached the right to be free from
arbitrary detention and the proposed process of judicial review was inadequate.
Although the bill allowed a preventative detention order to be revoked,
this could only be at the request of the Australian Federal Police and not
by the person detained.
The person detained was limited to making a complaint to the ombudsman or
seek a costly Federal Court review on the grounds of error of law, rather
than the merits of the decision.
The control order scheme opened the door to arbitrary detention and
breached freedom of movement, privacy and the presumption of innocence, the
report said.
The academics said the bill should make specific reference to international
human rights.
They said the government had failed to justify the need for such tough new
laws.
"It is not apparent that the breaches of human rights by the proposed laws
can be justified by the current level of the terrorist threat in
Australia," the report said.
Meanwhile, a government backbench committee is continuing to examine the
anti-terror laws.
It is understood the committee has held two meetings with Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock in which they spent six hours raising concerns.
Key concerns were that parts of the laws covering incitement to violence
could breach freedom of speech, despite there being a defence of criticism
being made in "good faith", the length of time suspects can be held without
charge and the detention of minors.
Mr Ruddock has already conceded that his backbench committee had already
forced some "minor changes" and suggested there could be more.
Victorian Liberal MP Petro Georgiou, who helped force the government to
soften its immigration detention policy earlier this year, has criticised
the laws for targeting Muslims.
He called for an independent monitor to report to parliament on the
operation of the laws.
© 2005 AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Report-says-terror-laws-breach-rights/2005/10/19/1129401301871.html
==============================
6. The triumph of paranoia over experience
==============================
Online Opinion
By John Tomlinson
In subscribing to John Howard’s terrorism package the state and territory
Labor Party governments have avoided a short term electoral disadvantage.
The Australian public has clearly bought the Federal Coalition government’s
line that we are facing a terrorist threat. But the Labor Party have handed
the Howard Coalition a long term electoral advantage. The Federal ALP, by
agreeing with the Howard agenda on terrorism, will find it harder to mount
a serious challenge to the present Coalition government at the next
election. This is because agreeing to such joint action means it is harder
for the opposition to differentiate itself from the Howard Coalition.
Bomber Beazley’s background as an expert in military strategy predisposes
him to accept the inane advice which emanates from the misnamed
“intelligence establishment”.
Since the start of the cold war, ASIO and the rest of “spooks incorporated”
have pursued a pro-US and anti-progressive agenda. “Spooks incorporated”
finds it easier to attract funds whenever they can manufacture a crisis.
Proponents of progressive agendas in the 1950s and 60s found they were
subsumed within the “reds under the beds” anti-communist drive. Other
examples were the crackdowns on those opposed to the US and Australian
invasion of Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, the dreaded anti-nuclear
protestors, pro-Timor activists, environmentalists, refugee advocates and
anti-Middle East war demonstrators more recently. These people all become
grist to the “intelligence establishment’s” mill.
The strategic experts are never wrong. They are, after all, experts. Few of
those who believe that there is real threat of terrorism in Australia stop
to ask, “If they couldn’t find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
might not the ‘intelligence establishment’ have misled us? If they were
capable of coming up with the advice which the Howard Government wanted
them to provide on weapons of mass destruction, is it not then possible
that they are doing the same now?”
It might just be time to stop and take stock. We might ask how many
Australians (anywhere in the world) have died at the hands of “terrorists”
in the last two decades. The answer is fewer than 200 dead. We might like
to ask how many Australians have been killed while in police custody in the
same period. The answer is at least double that number. We might put along
side that figure the people the Australian military forces have killed in
Afghanistan and in the two Iraq wars. We can add at least another half a
million Iraqi people who died as a result of the decade long blockade of
that country maintained by Australia and its allies.
We might like to ask how many asylum seekers have been driven mad by the
brutal mandatory detention policies of the present federal government. We
could try to calculate the number of East Timorese who died because of
Labor and Coalition governments siding with Indonesia in return for
lucrative oil deals in the Timor Sea for over 20 years. It would amount to
200 a hundred times over.
We could ask how many people are killed or have their lives ruined as a
result of domestic violence each year in Australia - thousands. We need to
ask why then is domestic violence not given a greater priority than
Ruddock’s home detention for people suspected by Mister Plod of being
likely to carry out an act of political violence. If the same logic was
applied to domestic violence as is being used to justify the new
anti-terror legislation then it would be necessary to take all Australian
men into preventive custody - they are, after all, the prime perpetrators
of domestic violence.
We might ask how many people in poorer suburbs die prematurely because of
the failure of the government to ensure decent health and community
services. We may even be sufficiently recalcitrant to ask why it is
acceptable in the 21st century to have Indigenous Australians dying 20
years younger than other Australians. The reasons Indigenous Australians
are dying at such a young age are known - the failure of governments to
ensure that adequate water, nutrition housing and sanitation services can
be accessed by Indigenous people. If over 1,000 Indigenous people die
prematurely each year because of government inaction, neglect or sheer
indifference why is this not regarded as a greater cause for concern than
the possibility that some political extremist might kill a few people with
a suicide bomb.
We don’t know how many unemployed Australians breached by social security
are made homeless or commit suicide each year. We do know that in 2001/2
there were 386,946 breaching orders issued by Centrelink. The thousands of
disability support pensioners and single parents whose youngest child is at
school after June next year and who will have their income significantly
reduced by the Howard Government, might be more interested in justice than
terrorist legislation.
Perhaps the “intelligence establishment” has convinced the Howard
Government that, irrespective of the real level of terrorist threat in this
country, Australia should play along with the anti-terror games of Britain
and the US just to show it is a good friend of our great and glorious
allies. If Australia wanted to be a good citizen of the world it might meet
its pledge to the United Nations to lift its foreign aid budget to 0.7 per
cent of gross national product. Then we might be in a position to do
something about the 42,000 people who die of hunger and malnutrition each
day on this planet.
If all this is too much to ask and Australians would rather believe the
fairy stories about 800 fanatical suicide bombers just waiting round the
corner to attack then there are much cheaper ways of combating terrorism
than employing over-paid ASIO operatives. The most effective method is to
rip up yesterday’s newspaper into small pieces and release them out of car
windows one piece at a time. I assure you it works. I’ve been doing it for
years and so far have succeeded in keeping Australia relatively free of
terrorists.
Dr John Tomlison is a senior lecturer in social policy at QUT.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=100
========================================
7. PM plays down Georgiou's criticism of anti-terror laws
========================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Wednesday, October 19, 2005. 7:04pm (AEST)
Prime Minister John Howard has defended planned counter-terrorism
legislation in the wake of renewed criticism by a Liberal backbencher.
Mr Howard says comments by Federal MP Petro Georgiou should not be seen as
a criticism of planned laws.
Mr Georgiou broke ranks with the Government over the laws, saying he is
concerned about the impact on Muslims and human rights.
"I am concerned about some of the proposals, particularly about
preventative detention and control orders, and will be looking to ensure
that effective safeguards against inappropriate and abusive use of new
powers is prescribed," he said.
Today Mr Howard said the laws are checks and balances on security agencies.
"This is unusual legislation for an unusual situation," he said.
He says he would not support the creation of an independent watchdog to
monitor the implementation of the laws.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1486143.htm
===============================
8. Son deported despite sick mother's plea
===============================
Sydney Morning Herald
By Lee Glendinning
October 20, 2005
An Indonesian journalist whose 70-year-old mother is gravely ill has been
deported in the face of pleas from the federal Health Minister that he be
allowed to stay.
Juliati Mardoyo, who has been in Australia for 25 years and is a permanent
resident, lives alone in a housing commission flat in Bass Hill. Widowed,
with no other close relatives in Australia, she pleaded with the
Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, to allow her son, Indra, to stay in
the country as her sole carer.
But the pleas were not enough to persuade the minister, even when the
office of the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, intervened. His office sent an
urgent fax to Senator Vanstone on September 27 asking for the case to be
reconsidered.
"Minister, please give consideration to granting permanent residency to Mr
Mardoyo, or allowing an onshore visa application," it read. "This would
ensure ongoing care for his mother."
Mr Mardoyo was deported the next day. It is, say advocates, another example
of the falsehoods in the Government's assertion that there has been a shift
in the culture of the Department of Immigration.
A detainee advocate, Brian Davies, said it was unlikely Indra Mardoyo would
see his mother again. "Are we so lacking in compassion, so barren of
feeling about humanitarian priorities opposed by statues, that we,
Australia, condemn an old lady of 70 years to life without the
companionship of the one child who is able to continue supporting her?" he
asked.
Mrs Mardoyo suffers from diabetes, cataracts, thyroid problems and
dyslipidemia. Medical reports reveal she will lose her physical
independence as problems with her spine and her knee increase.
Writing to Senator Vanstone, she had asked: "Please, grant my son further
visa, so he will stay in Australia with me for the rest of my life. He will
look after me."
The Department of Immigration said yesterday that Indra Mardoyo had
exhausted all opportunities to qualify for a visa.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/son-deported-despite-sick-mothers-plea/2005/10/19/1129401317125.html
================================================
9. Four years on, an "Aussie" missing boat sparks massive search
================================================
Project SafeCom Inc.
Media Release
Wednesday October 19 2005 11:15am WST
For immediate Release
No Embargoes
"Today, on the fourth anniversary of the sinking of the unknown refugee
boat dubbed SIEV-X by former diplomat Tony Kevin, a boat is once again
missing in waters close to Australian maritime territory, but this time the
missing boat has sparked a massive search, where thirteen planes, two
choppers and two ships are frantically trying to locate four adults and one
child since last Saturday."
"This week's nervous but appropriate search for the missing Immigration
Department vessel off Indonesia, not far from where SIEV-X disappeared four
years ago, paints a cruel contrast with what many have seen as a shameful
lack of action by the Australian government in locating the refugee boat,
perhaps even a deliberate avoidance of responsibilities, or perhaps even
sabotage," WA Rights group Project SafeCom spokesman Jack H Smit commented
this morning, "and we are reminded of the discriminatory treatment of
Australian search and rescue authorities when government department
officers themselves are on the receiving end of a distress situation."
"While the government was alerted about the possibility of the boat in
distress, the Prime Minister lied about the SIEV to the Australian people,
and using spin and manipulative statements, Houdini-ed himself out of the
range of attacks."
"Even a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister lied to the group Labor for
Refugees in Victoria in a letter, in which he suggested that the government
had been fully exonerated by the Senate at the conclusion of the Inquiry
into the SIEV-X affair."
"Far from exonerated this government is: the then Senate leader John
Faulkner in a most furious speech in the Senate vowed to pursue the
unanswered questions and demanded that in future a judicial inquiry should
take place into the SIEV-X disaster."
Like all disasters in the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in
Australia, the SIEV-X affair will not finish until all questions are
answered, all documents held in secret by the Howard government are
released, and all those who know things they have not told the Australian
people, have been subpoenaed to testify and also tell the full and
unabbreviated truth about the SIEV-X disaster."
http://www.safecom.org.au/news-1910-2005.htm
==================================
10. DEMOCRATS MEDIA: SIEV-X Anniversary
==================================
Wednesday 19 October 2005
SENATOR ANDREW BARTLETT
AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS spokesperson for immigration
SIEV-X ANNIVERSARY
The Australian Democrats today acknowledge the fourth anniversary of the
sinking of the SIEV-X where the lives of 353 people were lost.
Democrat Spokesperson for Immigration, Senator Andrew Bartlett, said "The
SIEV-X incident is another reminder of the deliberate attempts by the
Howard Government to mislead the Australian public.
"The period around the time of the children overboard affair was one of
cover ups, lies and a general disregard for human life and suffering,
perpetuated by the Federal Government.
The Democrats were responsible for broadening the scope of the Select
Committee Inquiry into a Certain Maritime Incident to investigate not only
allegations made in 2001 by the Federal Government regarding children
overboard, but also the detail of the expensive and inhumane Pacific Solution.
"I met and spoke with husbands in Perth last year who lost their wives and
children on the SIEV-X and was greatly saddened by their loss and the grief
they continue to suffer.
"The fact that they are still on TPVs and Bridging Visa E's only adds to
their suffering and their inability to get on with rebuilding their lives.
"In the light of promised rhetoric from the Government on a culture change
in DIMIA, I repeat our call for TPVs to be abolished and for permanent
visas to be given to refugees, concluded Senator Bartlett.
http://www.andrewbartlett.com/media/oct19-sievx-anniversary.pdf
===================================
11. Drowned asylum seekers to be remembered
===================================
Sydney Morning Herald
October 19, 2005 - 4:14PM
The 353 asylum seekers who drowned when a boat sank off Indonesia four
years ago will be remembered at the opening of an exhibition of designs for
a national memorial for the disaster.
ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope will on Wednesday night open the exhibition
for the proposed memorial for Siev X (suspected illegal entry vessel).
Author and psychologist Steve Biddulph established the Siev X memorial
project to recognise those killed in the incident.
Over the past two years, schools across Australia have been invited to
design a memorial to the Siev X, and more than 200 entries will be on show.
The exhibition will coincide with the fourth anniversary of the sinking of
the vessel.
Mr Biddulph wants a permanent memorial built on the shores of Lake Burley
Griffin in Canberra, a plan Acting Immigration Minister John Cobb said
would not be supported by the federal government.
Australian Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said the Siev X incident was a
reminder of the deliberate attempts by the federal government to mislead
the Australian public during the children overboard affair, which had
occurred just 11 days prior to the sinking of the Siev X.
"The period around the time of the children overboard affair was one of
cover ups, lies and a general disregard for human life and suffering,
perpetuated by the federal government," he said.
A Senate inquiry into the sinking of the Siev X cleared the government of
wrongdoing but it was highly critical of the failure of Australian agencies
to review the events that led to the sinking of the vessel.
"The Siev X tragedy hardened the government's resolve to ensure that this
type of tragedy did not happen again and as a direct result of the
initiatives implemented by the government to target people smugglers there
has been no repeat of the Siev X tragedy," Mr Cobb said.
Muttaz Attiah Mohammad Hassan, who is better known as Abu Quassey, is
serving seven years in an Egyptian prison for his role in the Siev X affair.
Of the 400 people aboard the Siev X, 353 mostly Iraqi and Afghan asylum
seekers drowned.
© 2005 AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Drowned-asylum-seekers-to-be-remembered/2005/10/19/1129401305746.html
=====================
12. [Robert] Fisk in Australia
=====================
New Matilda
By: Antony Loewenstein
Wednesday 19 October 2005
Robert Fisk is not afraid to tell the truth about war. The Independent
reporter has witnessed and reported on the Northern Ireland troubles, the
Lebanese civil war, the Iran–Iraq war, Israeli brutality in Lebanon,
Palestinian suicide bombings, the break-up of Yugoslavia, three meetings
with Osama Bin Laden, the rise of Islamism in Algeria and the current Iraqi
quagmire. He has spent nearly half his life watching 'people and countries
burn', and is the kind of journalist whose views offend both government
sensibilities and the media hucksters living off the official drip-feed, alike.
Fisk recently visited Australia for the first time to deliver the Edward
Said Memorial Lecture at Adelaide University. He also spoke in Melbourne,
Canberra and Sydney.
The last time Fisk saw Said before his death in 2003, Said told him: 'I'm
not going to die because they all want me to die.' Said, not unlike Fisk,
chose to tell the truth about the Palestinians and Israelis. The usual
suspects - Jews, Arabs, Zionists, Americans, English and many Westerners -
tried to silence his dissent. They all failed, of course, and the world is
now starting to realise the great injustice of the Israel/Palestine
conflict. 'Said told me often that it was exhausting having to tell the
truth about the Palestinians over and over again,' Fisk recalled.
During overseas research for my forthcoming book on Israel/Palestine, I
spent time with Fisk in his home-town of Beirut (days before the
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri). He was
generous and insightful when discussing the Middle East. On the morning
before his talk at Sydney University, I had breakfast with Fisk, Stuart
Rees (head of the Sydney Peace Prize), and a few others. Fisk was typically
alert and exhausted, an uncanny combination not uncommon in reporters who
spend extended periods in war zones.
We discussed the media coverage of his visit. He was interviewed on ABC PM,
ABC Lateline and for The Age. From what I could make out of Shaun Carney's
interview for The Age, he seemed almost uncertain how to approach Fisk
(besides, why was a journalist usually tasked with domestic concerns, as
well as being Peter Costello's biographer, interviewing a foreign
correspondent?). Carney seemed more interested in the fact that the hand he
was shaking had touched Osama bin Laden's, rather than Fisk's impressive
body of work. At least he gave Fisk the opportunity to criticise the New
York Times (copy from which is extensively reproduced in the Fairfax press)
and suggest a name change for that august newspaper of record: 'comma,
officials say, full stop.'
Stuart Rees said he'd contacted the Sydney Morning Herald and they'd been
interested in running Fisk's Sydney talk on the following day's opinion
page. They had wanted a copy of Fisk's speech, which he'd refused, and Fisk
said, 'they should come to the talk and take notes.' Suffice to say, the
Herald completely ignored Fisk's Australian tour.
Fisk's talk at Sydney University spanned the ages and discussed, in his
animated and often humorous way, why we are destined to repeat history if
we do not learn from it. From World War I to II and during any number of
Western interventions in the Middle East - all, he reminded us, instigated
under the guise of 'spreading freedom and democracy' - the Arab people have
been given a raw deal by their own leaders and their Western backers. The
current situation in Iraq is no different. A war based on ideology alone is
destined to fail. 'Iraq is lost', Fisk said. 'Much of the country is
controlled by the insurgency.'
His speech touched on the ways in which many people in the Middle East want
freedom and democracy, but 'also freedom from us.' He believes in the UN,
despite all its faults. He argues passionately for journalism to not be
servile to government spin and lies, and fears a growing generation of
citizens in the Arab world are learning to hate America and its 'values' on
an unprecedented scale.
Approximately 800 people attended the lecture, and during the question and
answer session Fisk was asked consistently about Iraq and the insurgency.
He believed, he said, that the Americans would leave eventually, but only
after they had been able to claim 'victory.' He was asked whether he
supported the Iraqi resistance and said 'no.' He tried to explain the
brutality of Saddam during the long years of his rule. And then came the
killer punch (and I quote here as accurately as possible):
'Supporters of this war say that “we” and the Iraqis should be grateful
we're rid of Saddam. But what are they really saying? That abuses at Abu
Ghraib, killings of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq and Guantanamo Bay
are not great, but much better than life under Saddam? Has our moral
compass lost that much direction?'
Fisk is a true voice of reason. The Murdoch and Packer empires are too busy
reprinting Mark Steyn to recognise great journalism when it hits them. Of
course, this is the same crowd of people who still defend the Vietnam War
as a 'noble' mistake. Besides, they have too much ideological baggage
invested in the Iraq war to change position now.
It is perhaps unsurprising that coverage of Iraq remains minimal in
Australia. We have few troops in the country and their mission remains
unclear. But when a country such as Australia participates in a war of
unprovoked aggression, it is vital that journalists continue to question.
Anybody care to ask John Howard how he feels about the fact that Iraq is
becoming increasingly cosy with its neighbouring Islamic theocracy?
Fisk humanises war and the effects of decisions in Canberra, London or
Washington. When tens of thousands of innocents are murdered in the name of
'freedom', we should sit up and take notice.
Fisk's latest book, The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the
Middle East (Fourth Estate), is released in Australia in early November.
About the author
Antony Loewenstein is a freelance journalist and author.
He has written for the Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney's Sun-Herald, The
Bulletin, Znet, Counterpunch and others. He is currently writing a book on
the Israel/Palestine conflict for Melbourne University Publishing, due May
2006.
He blogs at antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
http://www.newmatilda.com//home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID=1044
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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
.
|
|
 |
|
