|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 22 October 2005
|
Project SafeCom
|
Oct 21, 2005 19:43 PDT
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 22 October 2005
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. Big Brother rules the great brown land
2. Govt retaliating over bill leak, Stanhope says
3. ACT Chief Minister denied access to anti-terror laws draft
4. Leaking minister in dog house
5. Sticking to his guns
6. Shoot-to-kill laws might be watered down
7. Just shoot me?
8. WA premier backs off anti-terror laws
9. Mum's the word in terrorist purge
10. The SIEV X Landmark of Conscience is born
11. ADA Director Speaks Out On Sinking Location
11a. Don't blame navy for SIEV-X tragedy
12. Marion Le OAM on the Bakhtiyari family
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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. Big Brother rules the great brown land
=============================
Sydney Morning Herald
By Mike Carlton
October 22, 2005
And in the general hardening of outlook that set in ... practices which had
been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years - imprisonment
without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions,
torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages and the deportation of
whole populations - not only became common again, but were tolerated and
even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and
progressive. George Orwell, 1984
ORWELL jumped the gun with the date, but everything else is moving along
pretty much as he predicted.
John Howard's anti-terrorism bill frogmarches Australia down the road to
tyranny, towards an authoritarian state in which the police may arrest
people at will, and hold them secretly and indefinitely without charge or
trial.
"Suspects" may be questioned by ASIO, on subjects about which they may know
nothing, and be jailed for up to five years if officialdom deems their
answers unsatisfactory.
For all his trust-me protestations of good faith, this is exactly what
Howard is planning. It is there in the draft bill published by the ACT
Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, on his website. Its provisions would have
delighted General Pinochet.
Whatever Howard is publicly claiming, there is licence for the Federal
Police to shoot to kill if a person "cannot be apprehended in any other
manner".
If you are detained, you may tell one person only that you are "safe but
not able to be contacted for the time being". That someone may tell no one
else, least of all the media: penalty, up to five years' jail. On release
you must reveal nothing, repeat nothing, about your detention.
And the crime of sedition will include such frightfulness as bringing the
Sovereign into hatred or contempt; urging disaffection against either house
of Parliament, or - wait for it - promoting feelings of ill will or
hostility between different groups.
Malcolm Fraser, bless him, was right to say on Wednesday that "these are
powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight,
should not exist in any democratic country". At some risk of getting
arrested for ill will, he urges that these laws be opposed.
But no one is listening, least of all the Labor premiers, whose supine
acquiescence is but another wretched example of the ALP's descent to
irrelevance.
IN HOWARD'S Oceania, the proles are to be whipped into line by WorkChoices,
a wonderful example of newspeak.
Like 1984's Winston Smith bombarded by Big Brother's propaganda on the
telescreens, we have suffered this blizzard of Government advertising
artfully crafted to convince us that less is more. God knows how many
millions of taxpayer dollars it is costing, but it matters not to this
Government, for history can always be rewritten.
On Wednesday I came across some remarks from the Leader of the Opposition
in a media release.
"In a desperate attempt to find an election life raft, the Prime Minister
is beginning an unprecedented propaganda blitz using taxpayers' money," it
said.
"This soiled government is to spend a massive $14 million of taxpayers'
money over the next two months. But this grubby tactic will backfire on the
Government - taxpayers will see through it. They don't want their money
wasted on glossy advertising designed to make the Prime Minister feel good."
Enough? Wait, there's more.
"There is clearly a massive difference between necessary government
information for the community and blatant government electoral propaganda.
Propaganda should be paid for by political parties."
There was more still, but you get the drift. The Opposition Leader who
issued this ringing denunciation was none other than John Howard, through
his chief media flack then and now, one Tony O'Leary, back in September 1995.
The hypocrisy is bottomless but, happily, we have the Iraq war to divert
us, the pliant Murdoch media to stiffen our backbones for it, and, best of
all, the confident hope of a home theatre system in every lounge room. The
last word goes to Orwell again: "As for the problem of overproduction,
which has been latent in our society since the development of machine
technique, it is solved by the device of continuous warfare ... which is
also useful in keying up public morale to the necessary pitch. From the
point of view of our present rulers, therefore, the only genuine dangers
are the splitting-off of a new group of able, under-employed, power-hungry
people, and the growth of liberalism and scepticism in their own ranks."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/mike-carlton/big-brother-rules-the-great-brown-land/2005/10/21/1129775959293.html
==================================
2. Govt retaliating over bill leak, Stanhope says
==================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Friday, October 21, 2005. 6:00pm (AEST)
Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says retaliatory
action has been taken by the Federal Government over his decision last week
to post the draft counter-terrorism bill on his website.
Mr Stanhope says he has received an email from Prime Minister John Howard
advising of the ACT's exclusion from consultation over the next draft of
the bill.
He says the remaining states and territories will receive copies of the
amended bill, and a ban will be placed placed on the distribution of
electronic versions.
Mr Stanhope says it is a direct breach of the inter-governmental agreement
on counter-terrorism, and he says it is designed to muzzle community debate.
"A further draft of the anti-terrorism bill, a draft that was prepared in
consultation with the ACT and my officials, was ready for distribution
today," he said.
"It's now been distributed to all states and territories except the ACT and
I understand the Prime Minister has instructed that the Australian Capital
Territory is no longer to be considered part of the process for the making
of these laws."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1487986.htm
===========================================
3. ACT Chief Minister denied access to anti-terror laws draft
===========================================
PM - Friday 21 October 2005
Reporter: Louise Yaxley
MARK COLVIN: The Federal Government has carried out its threat to hit back
at the ACT for making the draft anti-terror laws public.
The ACT Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, angered the Federal Government when
he put the draft legislation on his website last week.
He says he's been told today that the latest draft is about to be
circulated, but the ACT will not receive one.
The State Premiers have called for changes, because they say the first
draft included a "shoot-to-kill" provision for police, which they did not
agree to when the met the Prime Minister last month.
But the Federal Government says that provision is important and it’s likely
it remains in the latest draft.
Jon Stanhope spoke to Louise Yaxley in Canberra a short time ago about
being denied access to the new draft.
JON STANHOPE: Well, my officials have been advised today that that a
direction’s been issued, I assume by the Prime Minister or the Prime
Minister’s Office, that the ACT Government is no longer to be included in
the consultations on the terrorism bill.
LOUISE YAXLEY: Have you been given reasons?
JON STANHOPE: No, there was no reason given. Quite an extraordinary
statement in a way, designed of course to muzzle debate on the new laws.
But there was quite detailed instructions for all jurisdictions from the
Commonwealth that no further drafts would be provided electronically to any
jurisdiction.
The drafts would, in future, only be provided by fax. And I understand that
the jurisdictions, the other jurisdictions that are to receive the
legislation have been asked to agree that the draft will not be actually
moved further than, actually distributed beyond Parliamentary Council
offices even, but their jurisdictions are being asked not to provide drafts
of the legislation to their own policy officers.
So it’s quite a remarkable response to the, to the fact that there is a
debate and that people are engaging in the new, the drafting of the new laws.
LOUISE YAXLEY: What action will you take?
JON STANHOPE: Well, it’s very difficult. I’m concerned that the Prime
Minister in insisting that the ACT be excluded, that we be locked out of
negotiations, that he’s in breach of the inter-governmental agreement in
relation to counter terrorism laws, which does require him to consult with
all the States and Territories and that he does require, he is required to
provide each of us with the legislation.
And it seems to me that the Prime Minister has chosen to tear up
inter-governmental agreement.
It’s very hard for me to do anything specifically in relation to the draft
legislation, but I of course will continue to consult with the people of
the ACT, even though we’re now being excluded from access to the
legislation, or to the draft.
And I’ll continue to take advice on the implications of the legislation for
the people of the ACT.
LOUISE YAXLEY: Does this action make you any less likely to pass it in the
end, through the ACT Legislative Assembly?
JON STANHOPE: No. It doesn’t, in fact. It makes it difficult of course for
the ACT to engage. Certainly we’ve been excluded from the process of the
Commonwealth’s legislation, the legislation which the Prime Minister
intends to introduce in to the Federal Parliament on the 31st of October.
I no longer will be part and parcel of the decision to introduce that
legislation. That doesn’t mean I won’t continue to put a point of view in
relation to the need for it to comply with our human rights and to be civil
rights-compliant. And I will of course continue to insist that the
legislation comply with the promises, which the Prime Minister made at
COAG, and I will be of course continuing to argue that the legislation must
be compliant.
It’s just that I won’t have available a draft against which to test whether
or not it is.
But in relation to the undertakings I made, I will of course keep my word.
The Prime Minister has torn up the inter-Governmental agreement and he’s
not keeping his end of the bargain, but that’s no reason for me not to
continue to proceed as I undertook to do.
MARK COLVIN: The ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope with Louise Yaxley.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1487998.htm
=======================
4. Leaking minister in dog house
=======================
The Age
By Michael Gordon, Michelle Grattan and Brendan Nicholson
October 22, 2005
THE Federal Government has retaliated against ACT Chief Minister Jon
Stanhope's posting of the draft counter-terrorism legislation on his
website by locking the territory Government out of the future drafting process.
And Prime Minister John Howard yesterday left the way open for a compromise
on the shoot-to-kill section of the legislation, which was not discussed at
the federal-state summit and has upset premiers.
Although Mr Howard insists the provision introduced nothing new, he thinks
compromise is possible. "I'm sure that in further discussion with the
premiers — which I intend to have — we can reach some compromise or
understanding about it."
As for Mr Stanhope, it has been decided that further revisions to the
terror legislation are to be provided in hard copy only to the states.
Also, state governments have been told "the ACT is not to be provided with
a copy".
The Federal Government was furious at Mr Stanhope's action last week, which
gave extra impetus to the critics of the legislation. Mr Stanhope said that
with its lockout the Federal Government had gone to "extraordinary lengths"
to muzzle debate.
"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," he said.
Prominent Liberal MP Petro Georgiou urged yesterday that the legislation
should at least match the safeguards in Britain's counter-terrorism
measures, especially on control orders and preventive detention. Mr
Georgiou outlined several areas where the safeguards in Britain exceed
those so far spelt out under the package agreed by federal and state
governments.
In an address to the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, the Victorian MP
warned that Parliament faced a "profound challenge" in balancing the need
for effective counter-terrorism measures with protecting human rights.
Mr Georgiou noted that under British laws:
• Control orders are confirmed only after a full court hearing.
• The necessity for an individual to be subject to preventive detention is
independently reviewed as soon as practicable after arrest.
• What a person says about terrorism will be criminally sanctioned only
where the speaker is clearly encouraging the audience to commit or support
terrorism.
• Parliament receives regular reports from an independent reviewer about
the operation of the legislation, including whether it is applied fairly.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/leaking-minister-in-dog-house/2005/10/21/1129775962082.html
================
5. Sticking to his guns
================
The Age
By Jewel Topsfield
October 22, 2005
The ACT's Chief Minister was vilified after he posted draft anti-terror
laws on his website. But he's a man of principle on human rights issues
from way back.
AT THE age of five, Jon Stanhope, one of nine children born to English
migrant parents in rural NSW, injured his knee. He then developed
osteomyelitis, a difficult-to-treat infection of bone marrow, which caused
one leg to grow longer than the other.
"From the age of 5 to 16, my right leg was two-and-a-half inches longer
than my left leg," says Stanhope, now ACT Chief Minister. "I lived out in
the bush and I used to take a terrible pizzling from the other kids. I
didn't have surgical shoes or anything, I just had this appalling limp.
"It was one of those things that was formative, and I think a lot of people
in society must suffer the same sorts of feelings. I came through it, of
course, but I do believe it had an enormous impact on me in terms of how
hard life can be and the extent to which life sometimes seems to be unfair."
At 16, Stanhope had an operation to shorten his right leg, but the impact
of his childhood difficulty continues to reverberate through his life. "I
have no doubt that many of the views I have built around discrimination and
human rights are probably born out of that experience."
Until recently the name Jon Stanhope was little known outside of Canberra.
He had featured in a couple of quirky national news stories, but nothing
too memorable. During the Canberra firestorms in January 2003, he made a
brief appearance on television as a real-life superhero. Media outlets
throughout the country breathlessly reported that the bespectacled Chief
Minister had stripped down to his underpants to rescue a stricken
helicopter pilot who had crashed into Bendora Dam, south-west of Canberra.
Stanhope again hit national headlines in April when one of his staff
members was unmasked as an anti-Howard graffiti artist. For almost a week,
Stanhope doggedly refused to accept the resignation of his adviser and it
was only after intense pressure from the public, Opposition and Federal
Government that Stanhope reluctantly accepted the staffer's third offer of
resignation. Perhaps these blips on the radar were portents of things to
come. But it was not until terrorists bombed the London underground that
Stanhope became a political force beyond the tiny jurisdiction of the ACT.
On September 9, in the wake of the bombings, Prime Minister John Howard
announced an unprecedented blitz on terrorism. The proposed crackdown —
which would require the co-operation of the Labor-governed states and
territories — included locking terrorism suspects away for up to two weeks
without charge. While the other leaders quickly indicated they would fall
in line, Stanhope sounded a lone note of caution. On the face of it, he
warned, the terror laws had the potential to infringe basic human rights.
Stanhope urged the Prime Minister to give concrete evidence that the
strengthened laws were necessary. "What we do not need are laws that are
introduced for the sake of 'doing something' or 'looking tough'," he said.
The Chief Minister, "long maligned as a boring politician" according to The
Canberra Times, became an overnight national identity.
Stanhope is bemused by the attention, which reached fever-pitch last week
when he posted the Government's confidential draft anti-terrorism
legislation on his website.
"I've been in politics for eight years, and I know any exposure I've
achieved this week will rip through to the keeper faster than a Brett Lee
bouncer to Adam Gilchrist," he says dryly. "I have a commitment to human
rights and civil liberties. I hold these values very, very dearly, and I
think that is reflected in the fact we have a bill of rights in the ACT.
"So I am not going to go off at a first major test of human rights and
civil liberties and simply embrace laws that trammel them."
Impeccably dressed in a navy pin-striped suit, Stanhope's responses to
questions are serious and considered.
Although quietly spoken, he is a confident, sometimes arrogant, performer
on the Legislative Assembly chamber floor and has been known to launch
savage attacks on the Opposition.
Australia Institute executive director Clive Hamilton describes Stanhope as
a "gutsy politician" and a "modest, self-effacing bloke".
"I know that he loses sleep at night when wrestling with moral issues that
the Government has to address," Hamilton says.
"He is definitely not a Richo 'whatever it takes' politician, that would be
anathema to him … If any premier or chief minister were going to refuse to
be bullied by the Howard Government, then it would be Jon Stanhope. He is
very committed to his values."
Before his life in politics, Stanhope balanced his job as a lawyer with
community roles including ACT Council for Civil Liberties president, the
founder of Racial Respect in the ACT and ACT Hospice and Palliative Care
Society president. Since coming to power in 2001, his Labor Government has
decriminalised abortion and removed legislation discriminating against gays
and lesbians.
The Government is now considering whether to legislate to allow gay
marriage. The ACT also became the first jurisdiction in Australia to
introduce a Human Rights Act.
A year after the operation that fixed his limp, Stanhope moved to Canberra
to study law at ANU — the first person from either side
of his family to attend university. He says he decided early on that
education was important.
In Canberra, he met Robyn, a palliative care nurse and counsellor, and the
couple had four children.
Chief Minister Stanhope is a popular figure in Canberra, a left-leaning
town of just over 300,000 people. In the aftermath of the bushfires and his
rescue of the helicopter pilot, his approval rating at one stage hit 84 per
cent — the highest of any leader in the country. In October last year he
led the Labor Party to its first majority government in the ACT.
"This guy is a complete straight arrow," says Federal Opposition Leader Kim
Beazley, for whom Stanhope once worked as an adviser on native title. "He
is a person of both moral and physical courage and often the two don't go
together. We are lucky to have him in leadership; it is not necessarily
easy for someone of his background to undertake these positions."
But Stanhope's reign has not been without controversy. His Government has
been criticised for its tardy response to the 2003 bushfire threat and
Stanhope recently came under attack for unsuccessfully attempting to remove
the coroner investigating the January 18 firestorm, in which four people
died and 491 homes were destroyed.
Stanhope admits the bushfires and the anti-terrorism legislation have been
the "most personally testing" challenges of his political career. On
September 27 he went into the Council of Australian Governments meeting
deeply sceptical about the counter-terrorism regime. To the shock of many,
he lent his in-principle support, after a confidential briefing from ASIO.
Clive Hamilton is one person who admits to being surprised. "I concluded
that the case put by the intelligence services must have been so compelling
that Jon Stanhope felt he had no choice," he says.
Stanhope admits he agonised. "While I have embraced the need for stronger
legislation there is a real risk that we blind ourselves to the
implications of the steps that we take and we don't focus on the
incompatibility between tough terrorist laws and civil liberties and human
rights." He says he was ultimately swayed by John Howard's commitment that
the laws would be consistent with the international covenant on civil and
political rights.
By falling into line, Stanhope alienated many of the supporters who had
perceived him as that rarest of beasts — a politician of principle.
"Politics is not a popularity contest, but I know people who hold civil
liberties and human rights very, very dearly invest a lot of faith in me
and their support of me has always been important," he says carefully. "I
know that there are a significant number of people that are disappointed in
me that I supported the legislative package to the extent that I have."
But on Friday of last week, Stanhope was back in the limelight after he
posted the confidential draft legislation on his website. Despite receiving
calls from the Federal Attorney-General's office demanding he remove the
"work-in-progress" legislation, Stanhope refused to budge. Talkback radio
went berserk. Stanhope was called everything under the sun, but he remains
unmoved, saying he was determined that the community be given an
opportunity to debate the legislation, which Howard had planned to keep
secret until it came before Federal Parliament on October 31.
"I simply wanted the people that I represent to have an opportunity to see
and comment on legislation which would impact on them. At no stage did I
believe I was subservient to the Prime Minister in relation to the bill."
But he admits the furore has taken its toll on his family. "I know my wife,
Robyn, feels personally and very deeply criticisms of me, she always has.
But I think after eight long years of wanting to protect and defend me,
she's beginning to learn to roll with the punches."
MILESTONES
1951
• Born April 29, Gundagai.
EDUCATION
• Bachelor of Laws, ANU.
1979-87
• President ACT Council for Civil Liberties.
• Original co-convener of Racial Respect in the ACT.
• President ACT Hospice and Palliative Care Society.
• ACT convener of the National Coalition for Gun Control.
1987-91
• Secretary of the federal House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
• Initiated and managed parliamentary inquiry resulting in the Half Way to
Equal report, the most detailed analysis of issues related to women's equality.
1991-93
• Deputy administrator and official secretary of Norfolk Island.
1993-96
• Senior adviser and chief of staff to federal attorney-general Michael
Lavarch.
1996-98
• Senior adviser on native title to federal Labor leader Kim Beazley.
1998-2001
• Leader of the ACT opposition, shadow attorney-general.
Since 2001
• ACT Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Community Affairs Minister.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/sticking-to-his-guns/2005/10/21/1129775959233.html
================================
6. Shoot-to-kill laws might be watered down
================================
Date: 21/10/05
By Maria Hawthorne and Saffron Howden
Prime Minister John Howard has signalled he is prepared to water down
controversial shoot-to-kill provisions in tough new counter-terrorism laws.
State premiers have backed away from supporting the laws they signed off on
at a special terror summit last month, accusing Mr Howard of slipping in a
provision giving federal police the power to shoot to kill.
And ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has been locked out of negotiations on
the next draft of the counter-terrorism laws after he posted the first
draft on his website.
Mr Howard agreed that the shoot-to-kill clause was not put to the premiers
at the special Council of Australian Government (COAG) summit, but said he
did not believe it would scuttle the draft laws.
"This is not something that goes to the core of these measures," Mr Howard
told Southern Cross Broadcasting.
"I am sure that in further discussion with the premiers, which I intend to
have, we can reach some compromise or understanding about it."
He said it was not raised at COAG because it was a side issue, and said
describing it as shoot-to-kill was misleading.
"There is no way in which this law, indeed any law at the present time,
authorises somebody, the police, to shoot somebody simply because that
person is fleeing," Mr Howard said.
"The reason we want to define it is to remove any doubts as to the precise
way in which the police can behave."
But influential government backbencher Petro Georgiou, the first coalition
MP to criticise the proposals, said the draft anti-terror laws needed more
checks and balances to protect Australians' fundamental rights.
In a speech to the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Mr Georgiou said
preventative detention and control orders needed to be open to more
scrutiny by courts 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.
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 who were
thought to be involved in, or have knowledge of, a terrorist act. 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 COAG meeting in September for the laws.
But Mr Stanhope said the federal government's move to lock him out of
discussions showed it was not serious about consultation.
The ACT government was told via email 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 draft was being faxed, not emailed, to other states and the Northern
Territory, presumably to prevent a repeat of Mr Stanhope's actions last
week in posting the laws for public discussion.
"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," Mr Stanhope said.
Copyright © 2005 AAP
http://seven.com.au/news/topstories/115203
=============
7. Just shoot me?
=============
Online Opinion
By Irfan Yusuf - posted Friday, 21 October 2005
I’m an Australian. I grew up in the heart of the Prime Minister’s
electorate. I attended an Anglican school. I practice law and do some
freelance writing. I speak with a broad Australian accent. English is my
first language. The only passport I ever held was an Australian one. My
favourite item of clothing is my Wallabies jersey.
I also happen to have a Muslim background. I have a Turkish and Arabic
name. And after reading the provisions of the draft Anti-Terrorism Bill
2005, I am terrified.
It took over 100 years to develop industrial relations into its current
form in Australia. Now, the Commonwealth is spending millions educating us
about our WorkChoices. Most ALP premiers are up in arms at the loss of
state jurisdictions in sensitive areas such as unfair dismissal.
Industrial reform interests me because it is the area in which I practice
the most. The rights and freedoms of Australian employers and employees is
an important issue. We need to have public debate on workplace reform.
Our civil liberties date back to ancient Greece. It took centuries of
civilisation and philosophical effort to develop our liberal democracy. It
took hundreds of wars costing millions of lives to protect liberties we all
take for granted.
But for some reason, the Prime Minister and most state and territory
leaders are resisting debate on laws which represent perhaps the biggest
assault of basic Australian civil liberties since Federation.
To make matters worse, few governments were happy to have the draft laws
released to those whose liberties will be most affected - ordinary
Australians. Were it not for the brave actions of ACT Chief Minister John
Stanhope, Australians would have had no hope of having some idea of the
extent to which liberties were endangered.
Mr Howard says the laws are based on agreement reached between
commonwealth, state and territory leaders. He says there is little point
having a discussion.
Effectively he is expecting Australians to accept the idea that people
should have powers to kill anyone they suspect of being a terrorist. The
“shoot to kill” power was nowhere mentioned in the PM’s proposals released
on September 8, 2005. Nor was there any mention at the Council of
Australian Governments meeting on September 27, 2005 of police being
allowed to kill terror suspects.
So who will be shot? What sort of persons could be killed as potential
terrorists?
Under United States law, there is a list of organisations deemed to be
terrorist organisations. Membership of and support for such organisations
is an offence. The organisations include the usual suspects such as the Abu
Nidal Organisation. They also include the Israeli Kahane Chai movement,
certain Northern Ireland militias and the Tamil Tigers.
In Australia, only groups linked to Islam or Muslims are deemed terrorist
groups. Already, the president of a national union representing police
officers across the country has stated that the proposed laws can only be
implemented using ethno-religious and racial profiling.
Now let’s be honest with ourselves. If a terrorist act occurred in Sydney
or Melbourne, which ethno-religious group would be the first suspected of
involvement? Vietnamese Buddhists? South African Jews? Kiwi back packers?
Would police officers be scouting yoga classes at Byron Bay for terror
suspects? Will shock jocks be calling upon the governments to crack down on
Steiner Schools? Will Liberal backbenchers be complaining about Hindus not
abiding by Australian values? Will there be talk of detaining
Callithumpians in special camps for their own protection?
The reality is that people with strange names and or slightly darker skin
colour will be the first suspected. That means men with beards and women
with veils. And that means many Muslim Australians will be targeted. But
not just them.
Some months back, I employed a clerk to work in my law firm. She has an
Anglo-Australian father and a South Indian mother. She considers herself a
Catholic and was born in Australia. Yet following the London bombing, she
could feel people were watching her more closely on trains and buses.
I have another friend who never met her Muslim father. I met her some 18
months ago when she was working behind a bar serving beer and wine. She has
a typical Arabic name.
Within days of the September 11 attacks in New York, FBI agents arrested
their first suspect. He had dark brown skin and wore a turban. Some days
later, another man sporting a beard and turban was shot dead by a crazed
killer seeking revenge. Both men were Sikhs.
Mr Ruddock insists that racial profiling will not be used in the
implementation and enforcement of the new laws. But Mr Ruddock has not
addressed the compelling argument made by the president of the national
police union. State and federal police will be implementing the laws on the
ground.
If a terror suspect decides to run, police officers don’t have time to go
before a magistrate or wait for specific orders. They just shoot. Just as
they did in London. And when they realise the person they just killed was
an Indigenous Australian or a French Jew or a Brazilian backpacker, it will
be too late.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=112
=============================
8. WA premier backs off anti-terror laws
=============================
Nine News
Friday Oct 21 16:41 AEST
West Australian Premier Geoff Gallop has backed away from supporting the
federal government's tough new anti-terror legislation.
Dr Gallop has joined his Queensland and Victorian counterparts in rejecting
the shoot-to-kill provisions contained in the legislation.
There was no shoot-to-kill provision in the draft legislation he and other
state leaders had agreed to at last month's Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) meeting, he said.
"When we went to Canberra we agreed with the prime minister that change was
necessary, particularly in respect to control orders and preventative
detention, but the shoot-to-kill policy wasn't part of the agreement and we
certainly won't be supporting it in any legislation in Western Australia,"
Dr Gallop said.
"To have a provision like that exposes us to the sorts of risks that we saw
in the UK."
It was better for police to continue to operate under their current powers
where good purpose and good reason were necessary before any action, he said.
"I think our police service works very, very well," Dr Gallop said.
"They understand their responsibilities and I think it is much better for
the police to work under the current framework rather than to signal the
fact that this type of situation (shoot-to-kill) may be legitimate."
The federal government gained the in-principle support of the Labor states
and territories in September for the laws, but fresh concerns civil
liberties and Muslim groups have been raised since ACT Chief Minister Jon
Stanhope published the draft legislation on his website last week.
©AAP 2005
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=68157
=========================
9. Mum's the word in terrorist purge
=========================
By Joseph Kerr
October 22, 2005
Even marriage is not sacred under the Federal Government's proposed
anti-terrorism laws.
A parent who is told that their child has been held by the Government under
its tough new laws aimed at preventing terrorist attacks faces five years'
jail if they tell their partner what has happened.
The laws, being considered by premiers and chief ministers, provide special
conditions for detaining those aged between 16 and 18. They ban detention
for children under 16.
For those aged 16 and 17, a role is created for a single parent or guardian
in the detention process. That parent would be allowed up to two hours'
daily contact, with detention lasting up to two weeks.
Any conversation between the parent and child would be monitored by the
federal police.
However, if the parent told their wife or husband that the child had been
detained as a terrorist suspect, they would face up to five years' jail.
A spokesman for the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, confirmed parents
would have no special exemption in the ban on disclosing information.
"There would only be one parent allowed to see the minor," the spokesman
said. "It would be visited by one parent or guardian.
"While the subject of a preventive detention could tell the other parent
they were safe, they couldn't tell them they were in preventive detention."
He said detention of a minor would only occur in "pretty rare"
circumstances, and a court would have to approve any detention lasting
beyond 24 hours.
The point of the scheme was to frustrate an imminent terrorist attack.
Police would have the discretion to tell the other parent if it was
assessed there was no risk.
The maximum five-year penalty would only be imposed if telling the other
parent had contributed to the attack.
But Labor's spokesman on homeland security, Arch Bevis, said the measures
exposed some of the seemingly silly consequences of the bill.
"It hardly qualifies as a family-friendly clause," he said. "The idea that
one parent could see their child and then somehow be fined or imprisoned
for telling the other parent is absurd. I suspect Janette [Howard] would be
pretty demanding of John to find out where the kids were. And I'd hazard a
guess that John might even buckle under the pressure.
"To give the premiers and states one week to look at it, to give the
Federal Parliament one week to deal with the whole thing, to give the
Senate one day to deal with it is just heavy-handed … tactics," he said.
The director of the NSW Institute of Psychiatry, Louise Newman, said
juvenile justice systems were specifically set up to take account of the
vulnerability of young people who could get anxious and distressed while
being detained.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mums-the-word-in-terrorist-purge/2005/10/21/1129775959888.html
===================================
10. The SIEV X Landmark of Conscience is born
===================================
by Steve Biddulph
SIEV-X Memorial
22 October 2005
Into the whisper quiet Canberrra City Uniting Church there came a sudden
tidal flow of people, noise, news cameras and journalists, senators rubbing
shoulders with people in headscarfs, refugee children and babies running
amongst the legs and feet, and musicians setting up amps and guitars. The
pews filled with a most unchurchish crowd, and there was a moment of waiting.
Jon Stanhope the ACT Chief Minister opened the evening, and right away we
entered some kind of altered space. He made passing remarks about his
recent role in making public the new terror laws, and the audience erupted.
They simply wouldn’t stop clapping, and Jon Stanhope, pleased but somewhat
embarrassed, eventually had to wave them to stop. Message received.
The Bloody McKennas, youthful musicians who had come from Brisbane just
that day to sing their powerful anthem Time and Tide, were clearly affected
by the moment, as they sang the bandmembers and some in the audience were
already blinking back tears.
The mood of earlier SIEVX events was changing to resolve, you could feel it
in the room. Amal Basry, the indomitable Iraqi woman survivor, told the
story of the people on the boat. By way of answer, the Chorus of Women - a
unique choir that could probably call down brimstone from the skies, sang
hauntingly in apology straight to the faces of the five survivors and their
family members, who had come from all over Australia to be there. Elders of
the Islamic community nodded in gruff approval.
Co-ordinator Beth Gibbings, who had worked three years for this moment,
then brought out of the shadows a huge computer altered image of the
lakeshore in Canberra, on which was the planned memorial structure. The
audience literally gasped. As someone prone to thinking the worst, I
assumed it was not positive. Beth and I spoke hesitantly about the
procession of white poles, each panelled with community art from
communities all over the country, each honouring a single parent or child
from SievX. The poles emerge from the water, suddenly diverge to show the
outline of the boat, exactly in its 19.5 by 4 metre dimensions, then rejoin
and continue to snake over the hills for almost 200 metres. 353 people is a
lot of people.
We shouldn’t have worried, again the applause spoke for itself. When the
evening ended, senators, members of the ACT assembly, officials from
museums and planning authorities, and most importantly the refugees
themselves, all expressed the same view. Its beautiful. Its fitting. You
must build it.
The confusing flurry of inaccurate news items about it 'not being allowed
to be built' have dissolved. The concept has registered. A "Landmark of
Conscience" is more than a memorial - its a way for church groups, RAR
groups, school students, refugees themselves and notable artists, all to
show their outrage and their remorse that as a country we let this, and all
the terrible mistreatment of people in the last four years, to happen at
all. Graceful white poles inlaid with beautiful community art will flow
across the country to Canberra next year, to be stood up in remembrance.
The SIEVX memorial has evolved to be a statement of intent, that this
country will grow, up, it will face its horrible mistakes squarely, and
take responsibility. For this is the only way things can change.
Steve Biddulph is a men's issues writer and the founder of the SIEVX
Memorial Project.
From http://www.safecom.org.au/sievx-memorial2005.htm
=====================================
11. 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 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.
http://sievx.com/archives/2005/20051021.shtml
-----------------------------------
11a. Don't blame navy for SIEV-X tragedy
-----------------------------------
The Age
Letters
21 October 2005
THE Islamic Council of Victoria's Sheikh Issa owes the Royal Australian
Navy an apology for his calumny that the navy was somehow involved in the
2001 sinking of SIEV-X ( The Age, 20/10).
This old and leaky Indonesian fishing vessel was grossly overloaded at
gunpoint by Iraqi, Egyptian and Indonesian people smugglers and
subsequently sank during a storm in what has always been regarded as
geographically Indonesian waters about 70 kilometres south of Java. The
sinking occurred more than 2200 kilometres from mainland Australia and some
350 kilometres from the nearest Australian territory of Christmas Island.
As the subsequent Senate inquiry revealed, the nearest Australian warships
and aircraft were hundreds of kilometres away during and after the sinking.
The RAN had no way of knowing of the tragedy but obviously would have
helped if it had known and could have assisted.
More to the point, the sinking occurred well within Indonesia's zone of
international search and rescue responsibility. It is simply irresponsible
at best to wrongly blame the RAN when an unseaworthy Indonesian boat on a
smuggling voyage sinks off the Indonesian coast well inside the Indonesian
search and rescue zone.
The grief of SIEV-X survivor Bahja Hassan is understandable, but blaming
the RAN is simple psychological transference with no factual foundation and
will not help resolution of her grief.
Neil James
Executive Director
Australia Defence Association, Canberra
The Age, Letters, 21 October 2005
=================================
12. Marion Le OAM on the Bakhtiyari family
=================================
Senate Inquiry into the Migration Act - hearings
Testimony by Marion Le OAM - Migration Agent, Canberra, re Bakhtiyari family
Date UNKNOWN
From Hansard transcript - date and I-location unknown
Mrs Marion Lê-It is very different.
Senator Barnaby JOYCE-What I am getting at-and I am just posing the
question-is that someone might arrive that you have serious concerns about.
You may think they are an opportunist, that they are lying to you and that
they have not been telling the truth-they said they were from Afghanistan
but they are possibly from Pakistan, and you cannot quite make the story out.
There are children and adults. What are we to do? You can go down the
English example, let them out and you will never see them again or you have
to detain them until you can verify where the truth lies. In the case of
some of these people, just lately, after having long assertions about a
certain fact being correct and that they were from a certain place-this is
from the front page of the Australian again-we have found out that they lied.
Mrs Marion Lê-I am sorry, I am not-
Senator JOYCE-I am referring to the Bakhtiyari case.
Mrs Marion Lê-If we want to go into the Bakhtiyaris, I could tell you a
number of things about the Bakhtiyaris. I am thinking I might in the next
few days publish the real story of Ali Bakhtiyari. I would say again that
we have two boys here. One of them now is 16 and the other is 14. They came
here near 2000. We are talking about kids who are now out there saying,
'Mea culpa, mea culpa,'-little kids who we locked up. When I saw them, one
of them had slashed his arms. He was trying to kill himself. We should not
be locking up children. When those kids came here, what did they know about
anything? Kids only know what they are told. Their mother was told by the
people smuggler, one assumes, to say that she came from the village that
her husband came from-it would make things simpler. In actual fact, she
came from Daoud in Afghanistan. Ali Bakhtiyari told me that very early on.
He said: 'I don't know why she said she came from my village. Why did my
wife lie?' I said, 'Because I presume she was told to do that by the people
smugglers.'
Senator JOYCE-People influenced her to lie, apparently. People advised her
to lie.
Mrs Marion Lê-The people smugglers-
Senator JOYCE-There were people who told her to lie because it could
exploit the system.
CHAIR-Senator Joyce, we need to let the witness finish.
Senator JOYCE-I have one last thing. I hear the case you gave about the
child. It was completely correct. Obviously, on the issue with the Baathist
party, there is no doubt about that Saddam Hussein-he was a bad man, wasn't
he. Lucky we got rid of him!
Senator Andrew BARTLETT-Lucky we locked up his victims for four years!
CHAIR-Mrs Le, did you want to add something to your comments?
Mrs Marion Lê-We have raised the Bakhtiyaris. This is the level of 'dob
in,' as I call it, that happened at the beginning. This is from the file
about the boat. It is an attachment to an email with the heading 'Intel
Advice' and it numbers various boats. I will name the person, since you asked.
It was sent by Terence Johnson to Heather Penhaligon on 22 March 2001 at
1648 hours. It said:
Afghans and Pakistanis identified on Urangan, Virginia ... boats based on
information collected during a visit to Woomera on 5 to 12 March 2001.
You will see in my copy that all names are deleted except for the people I
was asking about, but it does not delete the case manager. So, again,
Vincent Tysoe-
CHAIR-I am sorry to interrupt you, but we would appreciate it if you would
not name names.
Mrs Marion Lê-That is fine with me; it is just that Senator Joyce asked for
names and whether I had the facts.
Senator JOYCE-I asked for a clarification of the facts; I did not ask for
names.
Mrs Marion Lê-All right. We have a list here of informants. Informant 1
said about Rakiya Bakhtiyari: Afghan. Husband is a Pakistani who came on an
earlier boat and has a visa-travelling with brother-in-law.
That level of information from intel says from day one that she is Afghan
but that her husband is Pakistani and that she, by implication, is
travelling with her brother-in-law. From that, someone decided that another
person on that boat called Mohib Suwari, must be the brother-in-law because
he looked a little bit like Ali Bakhtiyari. As a result of that, Mohib
Suwari was arrested and with his children was taken from Tasmania and
thrown into Baxter detention centre. In order for him to prove that he was
not Ali Bakhtiyari's brother, I had to go all the way to Afghanistan. What
was the real information here? A family was picked up and it cost $30,000
to fly them in a highly traumatising airlift from Tasmania to Baxter on the
basis of this information.
Do you know what it was? It was a blatant mistake. Firstly, if we just take
the factual mistake, Roqia was actually travelling with her brother. She
was travelling with the brother-in-law of Ali Bakhtiyari; not with her
brother-in-law. That is a mistake there. The other thing was that right
from the beginning, the informant, whoever that person was, said she was
Afghani and that Ali was Pakistani. I can assure you that Ali Bakhtiyari is
not Pakistani. But it went from that tiny little 'dob in' on day one to
affect another family and sent me to Afghanistan.
Senator JOYCE-The point I am making is that the two Bakhtiyari boys have
now admitted that they lied and that their lie was influenced and inspired
by those around them in order to get an advantage as regards immigration.
Mrs Marion Lê-Excuse me, Senator, I do not think the Bakhtiyari boys were
ever asked about anything in any court at any time. If they said something
like, 'We came straight from Afghanistan,' they are seemingly now saying
that their father travelled into Iran and Pakistan first. That is
absolutely the truth. Ali Bakhtiyari has told me that story and nobody ever
asked him about that in great depth. Those boys are under age, Senator.
They were never asked questions in a court of law. If they said, 'We are
from Afghanistan'-because that is where they are from-and did not bother to
say, 'Yes, we fled and were living for some time moving around in a very
itinerant, disruptive way,' then so be it; they are kids.
Senator JOYCE-The problem I have is with the people who advised the
Bakhtiyari boys-
Mrs Marion Lê-That was not me.
Senator JOYCE-that this would assist their case.
Mrs Marion Lê-I do not think that ever happened. I do not believe for one
moment that anyone helping the Bakhtiyaris told them to lie. I do not
believe that. Not one lawyer, migration agent, or anyone trying to deal
with them, would have told them to lie. I certainly told Ali all the time
to try to sort out the problems which had arisen. When they found that
Roqia was there that early, she was still in detention. Did someone, in all
compassion, tell her husband that his wife and children had arrived there?
No, it took Mazar Ali jumping on the razor wire in Woomera to let the
Australian public know what had gone on. As I think Senator Crossin's
question was: how many times does someone have to get on to the front page
of a newspaper to allow families to know that they are going to get some
kind of recourse to justice or even basic humanity?
Senator Kerry NETTLE-Thank you for your evidence. I want to ask you about
dob-ins. You have talked a bit about the effect of dob-ins. Do you have an
idea of how widespread they are? The examples that you have given us so far
are of the department taking dob-ins as fact. Is that a standard or regular
procedure-dob-ins being taken as fact?
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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
.
|
|
 |
|
