|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 21 October 2005
|
Project SafeCom
|
Oct 21, 2005 00:47 PDT
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 21 October 2005
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. BREAKING NEWS: Jon Stanhope: locked out by Howard
2. Follow UK terror laws: Georgiou
3. ADA Director Speaks Out On Sinking Location
4. Jon Stanhope on why: a Webdiary exclusive
5. States draw the line at shoot-to-kill laws
6. Politicians, not terrorists are the danger
7. Michael Costello: Don't put trust in Prince John
8. EXCERPTS: Australian Democrats e-Bulletin
9. SIEV X survivor recalls the children's dreams
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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. BREAKING NEWS: Jon Stanhope: locked out by Howard
============================================
Federal Government locks ACT out of drafting of counter-terrorism laws
Media Release
Jon Stanhope, ACT Chief Minister
21 October 2005
The Federal Government has gone to extraordinary lengths to muzzle debate
on the new counter-terrorism laws, moving to lock the ACT out of the
negotiation of the next draft, in direct breach of the inter-governmental
agreement on counter-terrorism.
Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said the ACT Government had been informed by
email today that the latest draft of the Anti-Terrorism Bill was about to
be forwarded from the Commonwealth Office of Parliamentary Counsel, but
that the office had been instructed not to provide the ACT with a copy.
“The Federal Government is taking increasingly desperate steps to keep the
detail of this legislation from the people of Australia, and this latest
move will leave many Australians wondering just what the Commonwealth has
to hide,” Mr Stanhope said today.
”I am astounded and dismayed that the Commonwealth takes it upon itself to
lock out of the process one of the parties upon whose support it relies.
Rarely has the obvious contempt of the current Federal Government for the
people of the ACT been so blatant."
Signed by the Prime Minister and all the Premiers and Chief Ministers at
the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 25 June 2004, the
intergovernmental agreement on counter-terrorism laws provides that the
Federal Government must consult with all the States and Territories prior
to the introduction into the Federal Parliament of any amendments to the
counter-terrorism provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Paragraph
3.3(4) of the intergovernmental agreement requires that the Commonwealth
must provide all the States and Territories with the text of any proposed
legislation prior to introduction. By denying the ACT Government access to
the latest draft of the Commonwealth’s new counter-terrorism laws, the
Federal Government has torn up the intergovernmental agreement.
The full text of the intergovernmental agreement signed by the heads of
government can be found at
http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/250604/iga_counter_terrorism.pdf
“The email sent today reveals a government desperate to contain the debate
on counter-terrorism laws and eager to ram through those laws with minimal
consultation. Parliamentary Counsels around the country have been
instructed not to provide the new draft to anyone outside their offices and
to limit circulation within their offices to a bare minimum. They have been
instructed, in no uncertain terms, not to provide the draft to ‘policy
officers’ — in other words, to anyone who might offer an unwanted and
inconvenient opinion about the content of the draft laws. It seems, from
the email, that Commonwealth policy officers are exempt from this general
exclusion. In addition, the new draft has only been provided to the States
and the Northern Territory as a facsimile, rather than electronically,
presumably to thwart anyone who might be inclined to disseminate the draft.”
Mr Stanhope said he was deeply disappointed that the Federal Government had
reacted so churlishly to the opening up of the debate on the
counter-terrorism laws.
“Let’s not forget that this entire process began at the behest of the
States and Territories, who asked the Prime Minister for a special meeting
of the Council of Australian Governments in order to discuss a unified way
forward,” Mr Stanhope said. “It would be hard for anyone observing the
events of the past week to see any remnant of that collegiate spirit at work.”
From the ACT Chief Minister's website updated today:
What's New: http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/whats_new.asp?title=What
Human Rights Commissioner's advice on anti-terror laws:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/Human_Rights_advice.pdf
Letter from Public Interest Advocacy Centre:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/Public_interest_Advocacy_Centre_letter.pdf
DPP advice on anti-terror laws:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/DPPadvice.pdf
Human Rights Implications for the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/Stanhope_advice_20051018.pdf
Draft Anti-Terrorism Legislation:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/B05PG201_v281.pdf
PUBLISHED FIRST ON MARGO KINGSTON'S WEBDIARY:
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/federal_governm.html
=========================
2. Follow UK terror laws: Georgiou
=========================
news.com.au
From: AAP
October 21, 2005
THE Government's controversial new anti-terror laws need more checks and
balances to protect the fundamental rights of Australians, an influential
Government backbencher said today.
Liberal MP Petro Georgiou, who this week caused a stir by becoming the
first Government MP to criticise the proposals, said Australia should look
to the UK's counter-terrorism measures to improve protection against the
more severe aspects of the plans.
In a speech to the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties today, Mr
Georgiou said preventative detention and control orders need to be open to
more scrutiny by the judiciary and the Parliament.
"The British have had very considerable experience of combating terrorism,
so we are right to look at the UK both for what works and how to ensure
counter-terrorism measures are consistent with respect for fundamental
rights," he said.
Control orders should be confirmed after one week in a full court hearing,
while anyone subjected to preventative detention should have the order
independently reviewed as soon as possible, he said.
He also warned against introducing sweeping criminal charges for
encouraging terrorism.
A similar proposal in the UK sparked widespread criticism, "in particular
because the crime would be committed even if there was no evidence that the
speaker intended to inspire emulation, or that in the circumstances anyone
was likely to be inspired to emulate the action", Mr Georgiou said.
"The African National Congress was branded a terrorist movement because its
methods included violence.
"Under the proposed (UK) offence, it would apparently be a crime for
someone who publicly celebrated the defeat of apartheid to state that armed
violence made a significant contribution."
Mr Georgiou also reiterated his call for an ongoing, independent review of
Australia's anti-terror laws.
He said Australia faced a "profound" challenge to get the balance right
between responding to the threat of terrorism and ensuring people's rights
are protected.
"There are real tensions between a government's obligation to protect the
community from the threat terrorism poses to the right to personal
security, and its obligation to respect and protect other rights, such as
liberty and fair trial," he said.
"The costs of getting any elements of the package wrong are profound.
"Law enforcement agencies need sufficient powers to protect us, but the
lesson of history is that members of the community are also at risk if
power is not subject to rigorous constraints."
The tough new proposals, which would establish control orders and a
preventative detention regime, have alarmed civil libertarians and Muslim
groups.
Security forces would be handed the power to lock people up thought to be
involved in, or have knowledge of, a terrorist act, while suspects could be
made to wear tracking devices and be subject to tight control of their
travel and communication.
The Federal Government gained the in-principle support of the Labor states
and territories at a Council of Australian Governments meeting in September
for the laws.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16989732-29277,00.html
===================================
3. ADA Director Speaks Out On Sinking Location
===================================
Sievx.com
by Marg Hutton
21 October 2005
In a letter in today's Age, the Executive Director of the Australian
Defence Association, Neil James, rebuts claims made in the newspaper
yesterday [1] that the Navy bears some responsibility for the SIEVX tragedy.
The curious thing about James' letter is that while he states that SIEVX
went down in 'Indonesian waters' he actually gives a location - ie 'about
70 kilometres south of Java' - which is in international waters and within
the Operation Relex border protection surveillance zone! This figure is
similar to one Don Greenlees gave in an article in the Australian back in
2001 soon after the sinking.
Earlier this year we had Ministers Vanstone and Ellison making public
statements (which they later retracted) that SIEVX sank in 'international
waters'. Now we have the Executive Director of a Defence watchdog
organisation saying the same thing. Government Ministers and Directors of
organisations associated with Australian Defence don't pull figures out of
thin air. It is apparent that far from the sinking position being 'unknown'
and at best 'speculative' as claimed by the Defence Review of Intelligence
on SIEVX, there exists authoritative data held by the government
(persuasive enough to initially convince Ellison, Vanstone and James of its
provenance) that shows that SIEVX sank exactly where we claim it sank -
inside the Operation Relex surveillance zone.
It will be interesting to see if Neil James follows Vanstone and Ellison's
lead and retracts or amends his statement regarding the sinking location.
[1]
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/siev-x-mourners-remember-the-nameless-dead/2005/10/19/1129401318444.html
http://sievx.com/archives/2005/20051021.shtml
==================================
4. Jon Stanhope on why: a Webdiary exclusive
==================================
Margo Kingston's Webdiary
Thursday, October 20, 2005
G'day. I rang Jon Stanhope's office yesterday to see if he would do a piece
for Webdiary on why he released the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 last Friday on
his website. Today Jon delivered this exclusive response for Webdiary.
Check out Jon's website for this media release: Government to get
high-level Muslim advice and this one: Scholars give verdict on draft
terror laws and read the verdict here.
====
Why
====
by Jon Stanhope, MLA
Chief Minister, Australian Capital Territory
A great deal has been made by the Prime Minister in recent days of my
supposed breach of some solemn confidentiality agreement, by my simple act
of posting the draft anti-terror laws on my website.
It suits the Prime Minister to expostulate about this, because it diverts
attention from the detail of the draft legislation itself. But the issue is
a distraction and will ultimately be seen as one. The decision to post the
draft involved no machinations on my part, no tricks or ambiguity, and
certainly no moral gymnastics. My conscience is clear.
At no stage did I give any undertaking to the Prime Minister or anyone else
that I would approve the detail of these laws without consulting the
Canberra community, along with as many experts as I felt I needed to
consult, from both inside and outside government. The Prime Minister's
covering letter to the draft made no appeal for confidentiality or secrecy.
Nor should it have done.
The Prime Minister obviously has his own ideas about consultation. I have
mine. When it came to laws that will have an impact on civil liberties and
the rule of law of the ACT there was no prospect of my signing on any
dotted line before I had satisfied myself that the draft provided by the
Prime Minister lived up to the assurances given to me on September 27, the
day of the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. That meant
seeking advice. I would have been derelict in my duty if I had done any less.
I also believed that laws of this seriousness deserved scrutiny by the
broader community. I was conscious that once the States and Territories had
given their nod to the draft, there would be no prospect of influencing the
laws. The opportunity for open and robust consultation was narrow - a
matter of weeks - and it had to be seized.
I made the final decision to publish the draft on the day I went to address
hundreds of local Muslims at the Canberra Mosque, to explain to them my
September 27 decision to agree to the Commonwealth's proposed suite of
counter-terrorism laws. It occurred to me that I was asking Canberra
Muslims to trust me, without extending the same courtesy to them. I was
asking them to put their faith in me, without putting my faith in them. Why
shouldn't they see these laws, to which I had committed the ACT on their
behalf? Why shouldn't they know whether the assurances I believed I had
extracted from the Commonwealth were reflected in the draft I had been
provided? Why shouldn't they see what was in store for them and for their
fellow Canberrans?
Let's not forget that the agreement reached at the COAG meeting of
September 27 was an agreement on broad principles and directions. There was
no draft legislation on the table at that meeting - a matter with which I
took issue at the time, knowing that, as always, the devil in any
legislation is found in the detail. The spirit of any law can be lost in
that detail. Freedoms and rights can be lost too. While I emerged from the
COAG meeting comforted by the Prime Minister's assurances in relation to
human rights and civil liberties, I never for one minute believed that that
agreement was the end of the matter and that all else would be mere formality.
It must also be kept in mind that this legislation is of a curious sort. It
is not conventional Commonwealth legislation. Much of it depends on
referred powers from the States and Territories. That is why the approval
of the Premiers and Chief Ministers has been sought on the detail. Put
simply, the Commonwealth cannot legislate on much of this detail without
the stamp of approval of the States and Territories. In that sense, the
draft law does not 'belong' to the Prime Minister at all, though its first
draft may have been the work of his Parliamentary Counsel. Why then should
it be up to the Prime Minister to decide who should see the laws, and who
should be consulted on their final wording?
I do not resile from the agreement I was a part of on September 27. I
agreed to a suite of laws that I was convinced would strengthen the
capacity of governments to protect the community. I agreed because I was
assured by the Prime Minister that the human-rights safeguards I went to
that meeting demanding would be incorporated into the legislation. It is
those assurances I am now in the process of testing and verifying. My
Government has commissioned expert advice from a number of sources and this
advice will be made public as I receive it on my website,
www.chiefminister.act.gov.au . The first of this advice has already been
posted and I encourage analysis and opinion from as many sources as possible.
I also encourage Australians to insist of their leaders that, as a nation,
we broaden our anti-terrorism arsenal by pledging ourselves to address the
root causes of terrorism. We cannot and must not content ourselves with
simply subverting terrorism once it has blossomed. We can and must be
honest about what gives rise to the kind of anger that, in extreme cases,
becomes pathological, and deadly.
To my mind, too much focus is currently being placed on what Australian
Muslims must do to convince the rest of us of their peaceful intentions.
Not nearly enough emphasis is being put on the responsibility of the rest
of us to assess how our collective actions - economic, political, social
and military - might be creating an environment in which disaffection
thrives and feeds on itself and turns, in rare and terrible cases, into
terrorism.
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/jon_stanhope_on.html
===============================
5. States draw the line at shoot-to-kill laws
===============================
Sydney Morning Herald
By Andrew Clennell and Louise Dodson
October 21, 2005
Federal and state police may operate under separate shoot-to-kill powers
after the Premier, Morris Iemma, said he would not put into legislation the
anti-terrorism provisions proposed by the Prime Minister, John Howard.
The State Government believes putting a shoot-to-kill policy into law could
make it harder for police to account for their actions in court and lead to
"narrow or strange interpretations of the law by judges".
Mr Iemma yesterday confirmed that the state's proposed anti-terrorism laws,
which are supposed to mirror the federal laws, would not contain a
shoot-to-kill provision. He said he would not endorse anything he had not
agreed to at the meeting between the state premiers and Mr Howard last month.
"We will bring forward legislation consistent with what was agreed to [at
the meeting]," Mr Iemma said. "My view is that our police officers make
these judgements day in, day out. I don't want to make it tougher for them
in exercising these judgements. What we have currently covers the field in
this matter."
Unless the Federal Government waters down its proposed laws, NSW's decision
- which other states say they might follow - raises the prospect that
federal and state police will be operating under different rules in joint
anti-terrorist operations and have different legal protections for their
actions.
Nearly all the other state premiers yesterday joined Mr Iemma in opposing
the shoot-to-kill powers in the proposed federal laws. Victoria's Steve
Bracks, Queensland's Peter Beattie, South Australia's Mike Rann and Western
Australia's Geoff Gallop all said they were not part of the agreement
struck with Mr Howard.
The NSW Attorney-General's department is believed to have advised Mr Iemma
that the wording of the shoot-to-kill powers in the draft federal
legislation is unacceptable. Police believe there is no need for such
powers to be codified.
Sensitivity over the policy stems partly from the death of Jean Charles de
Menezes in London on July 22. The Brazilian was killed by police at an
Underground station when mistaken for a terrorist.
Under current common law, NSW police are directed to use their firearms
when there is a "risk of grievous bodily harm or death to either that
police officer or another person". A weapon may only be used as a "last
resort" when there is "no other recourse" an officer can take.
Mr Howard defended the need for the shoot-to-kill laws, which include a
provision covering a person "fleeing" arrest. "All we're proposing to do is
to extend the codification of the long-standing common law to circumstances
that might arise from preventative detention," he said.
He said it was a power that already applied in common law and in some states.
The Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, backed the premiers' opposition to the
shoot-to-kill provisions. "We are getting dangerously close to undermining
the values which we're struggling to protect from terrorist assault," he
said. He declined to say what Labor's position would be on the
anti-terrorism legislation, but said there was a need for new laws.
However, tensions are rising within the Labor Party on the issue. There is
widespread concern about the draft laws, particularly on the Left. But MPs
feel they cannot speak out without embarrassing the state Labor premiers,
who have broadly endorsed the Federal Government's position.
"The state premiers have hijacked the agenda and left us naked on opposing
the Federal Government's counter-terrorism proposals," a Labor frontbencher
complained. "The premiers are trying to out-redneck John Howard."
A backbencher, Daryl Melham, said many provisions in the draft legislation
would not help in the fight against terrorism and might even hinder it. He
described the shoot-to-kill powers as "horrific" with "no place in our
society".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/states-draw-the-line-at-shoottokill-laws/2005/10/20/1129775902652.html
===============================
6. Politicians, not terrorists are the danger
===============================
The Age
October 20, 2005
The power of state and federal parliaments is being eroded by stealth,
writes Kenneth Davidson.
Politicians, not terrorists or trade unions, are the biggest threat to
Australian democracy today. The Howard Government's proposed anti-terrorism
laws violate the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law and the
so-called IR reforms are an attempt to destroy trade unions and the right
to strike, which are essential characteristics of a free and democratic
society.
The Howard Government is attempting to gull majority public opinion into
accepting legislative attacks on civil and industrial rights on the grounds
that there is a trade-off between democratic rights and political and
economic security. This is a lie.
The anti-terror legislation unjustly targets Muslims and will promote
within the local Muslim community the alienation that helps breed terrorist
recruits. The IR reforms are designed to redistribute income from the
low-paid to profits and, to the extent that real wages are reduced,
productivity will be reduced. But at least these two threats to democracy
are on the political agenda even if the process is distorted by
multimillion- dollar propaganda campaigns.
A more insidious threat to democratic process has been the so-called
reforms to budgetary processes at both the state and federal level. These
reforms changed the process from cash accounting (which the politicians and
the public did understand) to accrual accounting (which the politicians and
the public don't understand). The change coincided with the shift to a
politicised bureaucracy away from a professional, permanent public service
where bureaucrats saw that their primary responsibility was to the public.
They exercised this responsibility by offering politicians frank and
fearless advice and it was understood where there was disagreement with
their political masters there would be a paper trail and estimates
committee hearings where ministers could be held to account.
The witches' brew of accrual accounting and a politicised bureaucracy
provided the excuse to abandon the presentation of financial information in
a form that was consistent with the public's need to know what the
Government's expenditure priorities were; how much money was being spent on
running public hospitals or schools; how it compared with felt needs and
expenditure in previous years; or how much taxpayers stand to lose from the
operation of the Commonwealth Games.
Cash accounting and detailed appropriation bills that were necessary to
finance the expenditure plans announced in the budget were prepared on a
consistent cash basis that allowed the parliament to understand the process
and therefore have control over the financial activities of the executive.
The nexus has been broken and the appropriation bills are now so broad as
to be meaningless, as shown by the Federal Government's apparently legal
use of the Finance Minister's slush fund to finance the attack on the ALP
and the ACTU in support of the IR legislation.
The corruption of executive financial accountability to the parliament and
the public is further advanced in Victoria than elsewhere. In April 2003
the Auditor-General tabled a report on parliamentary control and management
of appropriations that concluded that executive government is now, for all
practical purposes, outside the control of parliament. This conclusion was
ignored by both media and executive government.
Last month the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee published a review
of the executive's response to the Auditor-General's report that
unanimously concluded that the Westminster system of government in which
parliament is responsible for raising taxes and authorising public
expenditure out of revenue paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund has, for
all practical purposes, broken down.
According to the committee, with the introduction of the Financial
Management Act 1994, which takes precedence over the financial sections of
the Constitution Act 1975, a range of budget management provisions were
subsequently introduced allowing the treasurer, in specific circumstances,
to withdraw money from the Consolidated Fund without the scrutiny of the
Parliament. In other words, the Victorian Parliament has given away the
financial powers which, when push comes to shove, are the only control it
has over executive government.
Parliament's authority is now being whittled away in a silent revolution.
John Howard runs the national vanguard. Jeff Kennett and Alan Stockdale
were the vanguard in Victoria and their pioneering efforts have been taken
up with alacrity by Steve Bracks and John Brumby under the tutelage of an
unreconstructed Treasury.
Instead of executive power over parliament being justified by the divine
right of kings, it is buttressed by legislation and practices designed to
avoid annual scrutiny of parliament through the appropriation and committee
process and the production of largely meaningless budget papers designed to
confuse the curious and reinforce the apathy of the public. The system is
run for the benefit of the modern day barons whose stock in trade is their
connections at the Court of Spring Street - connections that are exploited
to get a share of lucrative infrastructure projects.
Kenneth Davidson is a staff columnist.
Email: kd-@ozemail.com.au
http://theage.com.au/news/kenneth-davidson/politicians-not-terrorists-are-the-danger/2005/10/19/1129401313647.html
====================================
7. Michael Costello: Don't put trust in Prince John
====================================
The Australian
October 21, 2005
THE federal Government is about to introduce new anti-terrorist laws. John
Howard says we should trust the Government. Most of the Labor premiers
agree with him. But on these issues of our basic liberties, we should as a
matter of principle trust no government. That's what the Magna Carta was
about all those centuries ago.
As well as general principle, there are many specific reasons not to trust
the Howard Government on this. Daryl Williams was the first
attorney-general to refuse to defend the courts, both in public and inside
cabinet. Howard's contempt for the judicial system was demonstrated by his
appointment as Attorney-General of Phillip Ruddock, who seldom missed the
opportunity as immigration minister to attack the courts.
Howard has shown his increasing arrogance and contempt for the federal
parliament by his decision to allow it virtually no serious consideration
of the anti-terrorism legislation. He says this material has been known in
broad outline for weeks. But even the normally compliant state premiers are
now saying the devil is in the detail of the legislation.
Why does Howard not do what he did when earlier legislation on terrorism
was canvassed, namely refer it to parliament's intelligence committee,
which came down with thoughtful modifications?
So there are specific reasons not to put thy trust in this particular
prince. But on these matters trust no prince. Almost all the current Labor
premiers have been enthusiastic supporters of hardline law and order
policies, jumping on the bandwagon of populist attacks on judges and
enthusiastically joining in yellow journalism campaigns on radio and
television and in print.
Don't get me wrong. I support the need for extended powers for ASIO and the
police. We had to suspend or modify civil liberties during World War II.
And I accept that the danger from terrorism, while much less than World War
II, is a real one that requires unusual protections. But the safeguards in
this draft legislation do not go nearly far enough. The role of the
judicial system is not nearly as powerful or overarching as it ought to be.
Proper judicial oversight requires bureaucrats, politicians and law
enforcers to be very careful in using these powers, but that is precisely
what it is meant to do.
This not a matter of seeing such people as hardline right-wing trashers of
civil liberties. Clearly, for example, Mick Keelty, the Australian Federal
Police Commissioner, is a fine person, and the former and current heads of
ASIO are reasonable, balanced, moderate people.
But that's not the point. The most dangerous people can be those who are
full of good intentions, pursuing what they see as laudable goals with
zeal, and impatient of what they see as constraints on their ability to
pursue the public good.
I was a senior bureaucrat and I know the temptations. This is why we have
courts; to save us not just from bad people but from good people convinced
of their righteousness.
It's easy to dismiss these as the concerns of an "elite". It is an "elite"
that used to include people such as Robert Menzies, who would turn in his
grave at Howard's arrogant treatment of parliament and his obvious contempt
for the basic principles of the rule of law. Even Howard's own backbench is
expressing serious concern. Are they just to be dismissed as a left-wing
elite?
Howard is quite dismissive of concerns about these laws in the Muslim
community. I urge him to read this week's speech to the Sydney Institute by
Ed Husic, the Labor candidate for Greenway at the 2004 election, titled
"Islam and Australian Politics: Can a Muslim get elected to Parliament
During the War on Terror?"
Husic details how the fact that he was a Muslim was used against him in the
2004 election campaign by push-polling, by doctored-up advertising, by
Liberals subtly but constantly reinforcing that he was a Muslim. One
mocked-up pamphlet, purporting falsely to be Labor, said: "Ed Husic is a
devout Muslim. Ed is working hard to get a better deal for Islam in
Greenway." This is dirt-sheet campaigning straight out of the Richard Nixon
handbook.
Husic recognises that non-Muslims can fear Muslims. He says that if Muslims
want to allay that fear, "they should say loud and clear that violence and
terrorism are not valid means of political expression - terrorism is
murder". "To receive understanding and tolerance, Muslims need to extend it
to others."
But Husic points out that Muslims also suffer from fear. He accordingly
calls on Howard to "do more to denounce fear mongering and vilification of
Muslims; [and] keep saying that people from all faiths, loyal to this
country and its dreams, have a place and should be embraced; say it's not
right for Muslim women to have to wipe someone else's spit off their
attire; say loud and clear that fear campaigns against Muslims in this
country are un-Australian - especially those conducted during election
campaigns."
Husic concludes by saying that when it became clear that he had lost
Greenway his father said "I am sorry if who we are stopped you from
winning." Husic said "I told him straight away never to drop his face in
shame for who he is. I don't and I never will."
Husic doesn't claim that the anti-Muslim campaign against him cost him the
seat. But he does say that it shows that our political leaders have much to
do to create an environment in which Muslims should never feel that they
have to apologise for who they are or where they come from.
One way to reassure all communities, including Muslims, is to take a great
deal more care in explaining this new legislation, and enough time to get
it right so Australians of all backgrounds and faiths can understand and
accept it.
But don't bank on it. Howard sees himself as on a political winner, and for
him that always comes first.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16982851%5E7583,00.html
==================================
8. EXCERPTS: Australian Democrats e-Bulletin
==================================
30th September 2005
1. GOVERNMENT FAILS DAVID HICKS
It is little wonder Australian David Hicks has applied for British
citizenship, according to the Australian Democrats.
"Our Government has abandoned him," Democrats' Attorney-Generals
Spokesperson Senator Natasha Stott Despoja said. "Unlike other countries,
such as Spain, France and the United Kingdom, Australia has left its
citizen to rot in Guantanamo Bay without adequate support or rights."
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=4814&display=1
============
2. COAG MUST PROTECT RIGHTS
The COAG meeting must ensure rights and civil liberties are protected in
the 'tit for tat' over who can draft the most draconian anti-terror laws,
according to the Australian Democrats. "It is essential the rights and
freedoms of Australians are not eroded in this my laws are bigger than your
laws routine," Democrats Attorney-Generals Spokesperson Senator Natasha
Stott Despoja said.
"The Government cannot take its anti-terrorism laws from overseas without
also taking accompanying protections of civil and human rights. Both the
United States and the United Kingdom, like most other countries of the
world, have protections for individual rights, providing an avenue of
appeal and an opportunity for judicial review when governments infringe on
these rights."
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=4816&display=1
============
3. THE SUN SETS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES
A five year review period for the new anti-terrorism laws is not good
enough, according to the Australian Democrats.
"This is precisely the type of policy and legislation that requires
regular review and assessment," Democrats Attorney-Generals Spokesperson
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja said. "The Governments proposals are extreme
and unprecedented.
"We should not be handing over civil and human rights without significantly
greater protections and safeguards. The United Kingdoms Prevention of
Terrorism Act 2005 upon which the Government has apparently based its
control order proposals requires review every 12 months.
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=4819&display=1
============
8. IF MEDIA DIVERSITY IS GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY WHY IS IT BAD FOR HOWARD?
The Australian Democrats said that reports that the Prime Minister will not
support reforms to improve media diversity are surprising. "Media diversity
is good for democracy and good for competition. Why does Mr Howard think
they are bad for him?" said Democrats' Corporate Affairs spokesperson,
Senator Andrew Murray.
"Just changing cross-media ownership rules and lifting foreign ownership
restrictions may notionally increase competition but it is not likely to
increase the diversity of views and voices."
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=4821&display=1
============
9. BAKHTIARI EVIDENCE TESTS AUTHENTICITY OF DIMIA'S CULTURE CHANGE
The Australian Democrats have called for an independent investigation into
all the details surrounding the Australian Governments imprisonment,
persecution and deportation of the Bakhtiari family, following the
publication of comprehensive new evidence showing the family are Afghanis
as they always claimed.
Democrats Deputy Leader, Senator Andrew Bartlett, said research done by
journalist Paul McGeogh, published in today's Sydney Morning Herald,
suggests deliberate deceit and duplicity on the part of the Australian
government. "The time for ducking and weaving is over," Senator Bartlett said.
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=4820&display=1
==================================
9. SIEV X survivor recalls the children's dreams
==================================
C. Naylor
Thursday, 20 October 2005
Canberra Times
Four years ago, Amal Basry was one of more than 400 people who crammed into
an Indonesian fishing boat. Today, she is one of only 68 who survived the
attempted journey to Australia. The boat, known as SIEV X (suspected
illegal entry vessel), sank in the Java Sea on October 19, after leaving
Sumatra bound for Christmas Island. It was only 19.5m long and 4m wide.
Most of the 353 people who drowned were women and children from Iraq and
Afghanistan. Five survivors, including Mrs Basry, travelled to Canberra
yesterday to mark the fourth anniversary of the disaster and remember those
who died.
One woman lost her 18-month-old son, while another lost her brother and
sister. Mrs Basry and her youngest son, who was then aged 18, spent the
night drifting at sea before fishermen rescued them.
"It was stormy, cold and rainy and I felt hopeless," she told those who
gathered at the Canberra City Uniting Church for a memorial service.
"I looked around and there was no one, just water and sky, and children who
were dying."
Before she had boarded the boat, the children had asked her what Australia
would be like. One of them had asked her whether he would have a
Playstation when he got there.
"Every time I think about this accident, I remember their dreams."
Mrs Basry and her son had attempted to make the trip to Australia from Iraq
to be with her husband, who had been granted a temporary protection visa.
They had travelled to Iran and on to Indonesia, where they had paid a
people smuggler to take them on the boat to Australia.
"It was midnight when we left Sumatra Island. When this accident happened,
it was on Friday October 19, and it was 3.10pm. [My friend] shouted and
said 'we are going to die, the water is coming'.
"After one minute, our boat sank and at that moment, I didn't know what I
was going to do."
She spent 20 hours clinging to pieces of wood and the clothing of drowned
victims before a fishing boat found the survivors.
Since then, Mrs Basry, her husband and her son have been granted permanent
residency and are living in Melbourne. "My son just got married one month
ago, and my eldest son is still in Iran but we hope he will be with us next
month."
She still stays in touch with the other survivors of the tragedy, including
the women who also attended the memorial service last night. "One of them
lost her son, he was one year and six months old. The tragedy is she still
thinks her son is alive."
Organisers of the event also unveiled the chosen design for a memorial
dedicated to the victims.
School students from around the country submitted design entries, with
Mitchell Donaldson, from Queensland, providing the inspiration for the
final version. All of the entries are on display at the Uniting Church
until Saturday.
The design features 353 poles, with tall ones representing adults and small
ones for the children. Project convener Steve Biddulph hopes to install it
on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin next year.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&category=general%20news&story_id=432496&y=2005&m=10
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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
.
|
|
 |
|
