|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 18 October 2005
|
Project SafeCom
|
Nov 17, 2005 17:54 PST
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 18 October 2005
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. All I want for Christmas...
2. Laws would snare a Mandela: council
3. The Truth behind the Baxter Fires
4. Vanstone talks down further asylum seeker arrivals
5. Solon may return 'within days'
6. Solon en route to Australia
7. Canberra Public Forum: “Temporary Visas No Protection”
8. Detainee hunger strike into 28th day
9. Help Needed on Villawood Hunger Strikers
10. An Open Call to Sedition
11. Sedition!
12. US confirms white phosphorus use in Fallujah
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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. All I want for Christmas...
====================
Letter to The Editor
The Australian
18 November 2005
Shopping centres are tinselled and awash with joyous Christmas carols.
My wish list, Mr Howard is:
1. Bring David Hicks home for Christmas.
2. Settle Vivian Alvarez's case for her wrongful deportation before Christmas.
3. Compensate Cornelia Rau for her wrongful immigration detention by Christmas.
4. Grant a permanent future to refugees on temporary visas, in the spirit
of Christmas.
Frederika Steen
Chapel Hill Qld
=============================
2. Laws would snare a Mandela: council
=============================
Sydney Morning Herald
By Matthew Moore and Marian Wilkinson
November 18, 2005
AdvertisementThe draft anti-terrorism law is so broad it could even be used
to jail members of the Australian Wheat Board accused of paying Saddam
Hussein $290 million through a front company, a government committee has
been told.
Members of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties told a Senate committee that
by introducing the element of recklessness to a crime of sedition, members
of many organisations would be exposed to prosecution for an offence not
used for decades.
Witnesses said the laws were so wide they could be used to prosecute the
ACTU secretary, Greg Combet, for his remarks urging opposition to the new
industrial laws, and could be applied to those who had supported resistance
movements including Fretilin and Nelson Mandela's African National Congress.
The council president, Cameron Murphy, said the law was "the most dangerous
threat to our democratic system in our history". He predicted police
investigations into normal crimes would "morph" into terrorism
investigations because the new laws gave police such broad powers to search
properties.
He agreed the AWB payments, ostensibly for the transport of wheat inside
Iraq, could constitute the sort of reckless behaviour outlawed by the new
sedition clauses.
The co-convener of the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Network, Dr Waleed
Kadous, said that under the bill, supporting resistance groups such as
Fretilin could be seen as advocating terrorism. He predicted the laws would
discourage Muslims from co-operating with authorities.
But the head of ASIO, Paul O'Sullivan, supported the proposed new laws,
telling senators, they were "directed at strengthening Australia's
counter-terrorism capabilities".
Despite the recent arrests on terrorism charges in Sydney and Melbourne,
the threat had still not abated, he said, and ASIO believed an act of
terrorism was "feasible and could still occur".
The deputy commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, John Lawler, said
police strongly supported the proposals on control orders, preventive
detention, wider search powers and sedition.
But he said the laws would be used "judiciously and cautiously" to protect
people. He made it clear that control orders, allowing for possible house
arrests, would be used against suspects who had trained in terrorist camps
overseas, in bomb making and assassination, not where there was
insufficient evidence to charge them with an offence or where the evidence
would reveal sources.
Mr Lawler said the federal police supported the proposed sedition laws
because there were people who urged others to undertake terrorist activity.
He noted the publicity earlier this year about the sale of publications
inciting violence.
However, questioned by senators, Mr Lawler conceded the federal police had
received no written advice from the Attorney-General explaining why the
existing laws on incitement to violence were not sufficient to prosecute
offenders without the need for sweeping new sedition laws.
The president of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, John
von Doussa, was particularly worried that the new bill had no provisions on
how to detain suspects suffering from mental illness.
"If [such] a person is cut off from support mechanisms it could be
disastrous," he said.
He feared the insistence on keeping detainees isolated could mean they
would need to be kept in solitary confinement.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/laws-would-snare-a-mandela-council/2005/11/17/1132016927233.html
==========================
3. The Truth behind the Baxter Fires
==========================
16 November 2005
Since DIMIA have gone silent, we have collected the following information
and reports from witnesses.
The facts are:
• No Asylum Seeker was involved in lighting the fires.
• Asylum seekers suffered loss of personal possessions and effects.
• One man, an artist with pictures in readiness for an exhibition in Port
Augusta lost his entire collection’.
• Some Chinese men lost their dearest possessions-photos of their families.
FACT: Three criminal deportees were involved in lighting the fires.
This highlights an ongoing problem at Baxter where men transferred from the
prison system and awaiting deportation are placed throughout the asylum
seeker compounds.
There is no good reason to do this when there are nine compounds at Baxter,
a number of which remain unoccupied. Asylum seekers have always expressed
concern and fear that ex-prisoners were placed in their compounds because
they saw this as DIMIA attempting to confuse the Australian people by
mixing asylum seekers and ex-prisoners to present asylum seekers as criminals.
While some ex-prisoners present few problems, others are angry and violent
after many years in the prison system and frighten asylum seekers who have
fled violence in their own countries. Asylum seekers report being afraid to
come out of their rooms when ex-prisoners are on the rampage. They say that
the ex-prisoners bait the guards poisoning the atmosphere for everyone.
These are two different groups with very different needs. DIMIA should
immediately separate them. They have the space and facilities available and
should do so without delay.
PAMELA CURR
======================================
4. Vanstone talks down further asylum seeker arrivals
======================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Wednesday, November 16, 2005. 8:02pm (AEDT)
Federal Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone says there is only a remote
chance that more small boats of asylum seekers would try to make the
Australian mainland.
A group of seven asylum seekers from West Timor, including two infants,
landed on the remote Kimberley coastline earlier this month.
They are now being held in Darwin while the Immigration Department decides
if they are eligible for protection visas.
A spokesman for Senator Amanda Vanstone has confirmed the boat was not
linked to any people smuggling operation.
Their arrival comes as authorities deal with a wave of illegal fishing
vessel in north Australian waters.
The Government says the large volume of boats does create problems for
authorities but it is prepared should more asylum seeker boats arrive.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1508427.htm
=======================
5. Solon may return 'within days'
=======================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Wednesday, November 16, 2005. 6:01pm (AEDT)
The lawyer for a woman wrongly deported to the Philippines hopes she could
be back in Australia soon, possibly within days.
Earlier this year, it was revealed Vivian Alvarez Solon had been wrongly
deported and was living in a hospice for the destitute and dying in the
Philippines.
Sydney lawyer George Newhouse has been negotiating a care package with the
Federal Government on Ms Solon's behalf.
Mr Newhouse says there could be a decision on her immediate future within
hours.
"The issues do relate to her interim package, in other words the
arrangements for her when she arrives back in Australia immediately and the
arbitration process she may need to go through in order to determine her
long-term future," he said.
"But I will say that we have made enormous strides in our negotiations with
the Australian Government solicitor."
Mr Newhouse says if he receives a favourable response from the Government
this afternoon, Ms Solon could be back in the country within days.
"Vivian is extremely keen to come back to see her young boys but she also
understands that she is disabled and that if she comes back without
appropriate accommodation and treatment, she will be a burden on her family
and her children," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1508107.htm
=====================
6. Solon en route to Australia
=====================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Friday, November 18, 2005. 1:29am (AEDT)
Vivian Solon, the Australian woman wrongfully deported to the Philippines
in 2001, is returning to Australia.
Ms Solon, who is in wheelchair, was deported even though she was an
naturalised citizen.
She was found in a hospice north of Manila in May this year.
A subsequent investigation described the Immigration Department's handling
of the 43-year-old mother-of-two's case as "catastrophic".
Her return to Australia has been delayed by lengthy negotiations for a
compensation package.
She has now boarded a flight to Australia, accompanied by what appear to be
Australian embassy officials.
Ms Solon's case came to light after it was revealed another Australian,
German-born Cornelia Rau, was wrongfully imprisoned for 10 months as an
illegal immigrant.
- AFP
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1509464.htm
===========================================
7. Canberra Public Forum: “Temporary Visas No Protection”
===========================================
....Put an end to endless insecurity....
For all of us who care there is work still to be done - and together we can
do it!
Come along and give strength to the cause.
TUESDAY November 29 7.30pm
Manning Clarke Theatre, ANU, Canberra.
Guest Speakers:
Marion Le OAM, Senator Andrew Bartlett, Pamela Curr, Bruce Baird MP (TBC) &
Carmen Lawrence MP (TBC)
The Howard government has made a number of ‘reforms’ to refugee policy in
recent times.
However, families remain in ‘community detention', thousands more find
themselves in a new type of hell, living on Bridging Visas without work or
medical rights or financial support or on Temporary Visas unable to access
good jobs, apprenticeships, study or family reunion.
While we have won some gains winning a number of refugee rights reforms and
turning around public opinion there has been no substantial change in
refugee policy.
Each case now seems to hang on the whim of the Minister.
How do we keep up the momentum and achieve more fundamental policy change?
How do we help the long term detained now suffering mental illness to
survive in community?
Organised by the Refugee Action Committee, Canberra
www.refugeeaction.org
Enquiries Murray 0407 412 303
Andrew 0438 624 744 or 02 6247-2424
Jane 0409 773 572
============================
8. Detainee hunger strike into 28th day
============================
From: AAP
November 16, 2005
TWO detainees held at Sydney's Villawood immigration centre are on the 28th
day of a hunger strike, while another man is into his second day of
refusing food.
Six Chinese detainees began a hunger strike on October 20 to protest
against Australia's mandatory detention policy.
Three of the original six men ended their protest on the weekend while a
fourth man pulled out of the hunger strike on Monday.
One remains in hospital.
However, another Chinese detainee joined the protest yesterday.
Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has condemned the protest and said she
would not consider the men's cases until they ended their hunger strike.
"The Government does not encourage action like this and urges the three
individuals to stop their protest action," an immigration department
spokesman said.
"The detention service provider and its medical staff are closely
monitoring the detainees and food and water are made available at all times."
Meanwhile, the Federal Government announced a $300,000 funding boost today
to help migrants and refugees living in Melbourne's east manage their
family relationships.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17265438-29277,00.html
================================
9. Help Needed on Villawood Hunger Strikers
================================
The situation for the remaining hunger strikers continues to worsen.
I was interviewed on this matter on ABC Radio News yesterday morning.
Transcript here - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1505657.htm
Vanstone replied later in the day
- http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1506083.htm
The remaining hunger strikers are now in their twenty-seventh day of their
hunger strike, and those that remain seem determined to continue.
Last Friday I had a telephone link up with the detainees and a member of
Falun Gong in Sydney. (Three of the original six hunger strikers were Falun
Gong) In a rare episode of cooperation, DIMIA agreed to this as they knew
we were trying to talk the hunger strikers from continuing.
We did all we could to persuade them to give up the hunger strike. I passed
on medical advice I had been given by Dr. Richard Di Natalie that they
would risk permanent long-term harm and possibly shortened lives if they
continued. We also told them we would try and get their grievances to the
media and also help with getting legal assistance and appeals to the
ombudsman.
Three subsequently gave up their hunger strike over the weekend.
The others, however, seem very determined to continue, and put this to me
in very strong terms, although they said they were grateful for my efforts.
The danger is that even if they later stop it would be too late to prevent
serious health damage and shortened lives. The minister has no political
reason to intervene to stop this as the damage would only become apparent
in later years. So even if she is forced to eventually intervene, she would
only do so to prevent something politically embarrassing, such as a death
that would make the media.
Given the determination of the hunger strikers and the position of the
minister I think the only thing to do now is to put as much pressure on the
minister to at act, and release them into the community while their cases
are being processed. (Which is their main demand.)
If as many people fax and phone to the minister and put pressure on her to
do this.
Phone - (08) 8223 1757
Fax - (08) 8223 1750
If you phone her minders will tell you that you have to contact the
department, but keep insisting that you want a message taken and given to
her as a senator.
Tell her you are concerned about the now severe danger of long term damage
to the hunger strikers, and remind her that she has the authority to
instruct her department to release them into the community while their
claims are being processed. (Her minders may argue the point with you over
this, but I have clear legal advice that this is the case.)
The hunger strikers also feel their cases have been wrongly rejected, so
remind the minister that considerable numbers of previously rejected asylum
seekers are eventually proved to be genuine refugees, and ask that they be
granted permission under section 48b of the act to have their cases reheard.
Be polite but insistent.
Thanks and best wishes,
Peter Job
Vic Greens Spokesperson on Refugees
0423 515 603
=====================
10. An Open Call to Sedition
=====================
New Matilda
By: Chas Savage
Wednesday 16 November 2005
UnAustralians.
Citizens.
I speak to you today about your own selfinterest, and mine, and how we
live our lives in these dangerous times.
I speak to you not of the threat made against our lives, but of the threat
imminent to our freedoms, our way of life.
In 1777, Edmund Burke wrote that the true danger to freedom arose when
liberty was nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. We should wish that
1777 was now, and that Burke was writing to our Prime Minister. Perhaps
then John Howard would be less reckless in his pursuit of sedition powers
and more scrupulous in protecting our traditions of free association and
free speech.
I therefore declare I speak the following with open, seditious intention.
It is to be a seven year crime to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt.
Adulterous, inbred and foreign, the Sovereign, and her heirs and
successors, remind us that, by them, we are made no democratic people.
Appointed by bloodline — accomplishment and merit enter not into the
question of the prominence accorded to them. They therefore prove that our
selfgovernment is degraded by the powerful in service of their own interests.
As such, they deserve our democratic hatred and contempt.
It is to be a seven year crime to urge disaffection with the Constitution.
Overwhelmingly concerned with matters of commerce, and gerrymandered to
protect States instead of individuals, the Australian Constitution serves a
reduced purpose poorly. Under this Constitution, the High Court has ruled
that a man, charged with and guilty of no crime, can be locked up
indefinitely. Under this Constitution, our fundamental rights are left to
the mercy of predators — like John Howard — and windbags — like Kim Beazley.
As such, the Constitution deserves the disaffection of a democratic people.
This Government wants to make it a seven year crime to urge disaffection
with the government itself.
Remember, this is a government that behaves incompetently and cruelly. Its
leaders adhere to a cruel gangster code. They abandon law when it suits
them. Our Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, once opined that David Hicks,
if returned from Guantanamo Bay, would sit next to decent Australians in
cinemas and that this should be a matter of concern.
Imagine this. You are a decent Australian. You find yourself in a cinema.
The lights are off. It is dark. A shadow looms huge next to you. You cannot
see, so at first you sweat but then you scream … for it is Alexander Downer.
And he says he wants to … protect you.
This gang is shameless in its pursuit of power. To maintain its strangler’s
grip — to champion the virtues of the salt mine, the workplace of master
and slave — it looted the Australian Treasury — our treasury — of $55
million that belonged to us.
The good health of a democracy needs the engagement of informed citizens. A
citizenry itself is made informed by public debate and by the free voicing
of opposing views. John Stuart Mill, once precious to Liberals, made it
clear that diversity of opinion was not an evil, but a good. This gang,
however, choses to argue laws that bear on our freedoms behind closed
doors, and then ambush a compliant parliament.
As such, they deserve the disaffection of democratic people.
It is to be a seven year crime to urge disaffection with Parliament.
Well, the Houses of the Parliament have become imperial. They tend to their
own affairs before and above all else. They need cleaning, and cleansing,
and they deserve our disaffection.
In these proposed laws, reference is made to sayings and acts done in good
faith. Let it be clear there is no good faith here. Instead, I am prompted
by a sense of malice and illwill and seek to create a maximum level of
public discontent, disorder and disturbance.
Because I do not want to see liberty nibbled away, I urge you to act with
unlawful seditious intention against the Sovereign and against the Government.
UnAustralians.
Citizens.
You deserve much better than this.
Reject these laws.
And later tonight and tomorrow, repeat this to yourself, to your friends,
and to your enemies.
These laws — not in my name.
Not in this country.
Not at this time.
Not now.
Not ever.
Not in my name. Not in this country. Not at this time. Not now. Not ever.
This is an edited version of a speech delivered at ‘SEDITION!’ at the
Sydney Theatre, on 13 November 2005. An earlier version was published by
The Age, on 24 October.
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=1136
=========
11. Sedition!
=========
New Matilda
By: Spencer Zifcak
Wednesday 16 November 2005
For all the political posturing and chatter that will, in ensuing days,
overtake us in the debate about the new laws on sedition, there is one
simple thing that needs to be remembered. That is, we are dealing here with
the criminalisation of speech. What is contemplated here is the outlawing
of words.
However many meanings of these detailed provisions will be injected into
the public arena, whether by way of clarification or disinformation;
however many arguments there will be about the interpretation of such
complex legislation; this is the fundamental matter with which we are
concerned:
To speak in a way that is disapproved of by the authorities is to become an
offence against the criminal law.
And it is more than that. For it is not only over words that this new legal
net may be cast.
The net may reach to symbolic speech, of which flag burning is the
paradigmatic example. And it may reach to artistic expression. It may
extend to the theatre, to the plays of Hannie Rayson for example. It may
trap the cabaret performance of Eddie Perfect. It may cover painting — one
thinks here of an Australian equivalent of Picasso’s Guernica. It may draw
in music, as in the lyrics of Archie Roach or Peter Garrett (as he then
was), to say nothing of rappers.
Having said that, I think it is important not to get overexcited. We are
not at the new dawn of autocracy. However, when laws are drawn as loosely
and broadly as these, it is inevitable that the meaning of the statutory
language will come to vary with circumstance. Guilt and innocence may come
to be interpreted in accordance with the public sentiment of the time.
This will not be of concern when public opinion is strongly supportive of
free speech — as it remains now. But recent history has demonstrated
clearly with what facility public opinion can be manipulated to generate
irrational fear of aliens without and of minorities within. One can just
imagine how that sentiment may swing if there is just one terrorist attack
on Australian soil.
In their defence, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General will say that
we have had sedition laws on the statute books since 1914 — that this is
‘just an endeavour to modernise them’ and make their language simpler and
more accessible.
Such a defence is nothing more than disingenuousness and dissembling.
The content of sedition has been broadened in a number of ways by the
proposed laws. Perhaps the most important is that it will now include, for
example:
• Urging someone to help, by any means whatever, an organisation or country
at war with Australia, even where war has not been officially declared; and
• Urging someone to help, by any means whatever, an organisation or country
fighting Australia’s defence forces, no matter what the merits or demerits
of the military engagement might be.
It is difficult not to think that these two additions have been designed to
stem criticism by those who would vehemently take issue with Australia’s
intervention in Iraq.
These two provisions and others, however, are something else as well. They
are a radical departure from the traditional understanding of the justified
limits on free speech. These two offences divorce the utterance of the
words from the cardinal consequence to be avoided, that is, the instigation
of violence.
There is only one circumstance in which words should be legally proscribed.
That is where they are intended to and are calculated to provoke violence.
Beyond that, the play of argument, difference and dissent should, in a free
and democratic society, proceed untrammeled.
There is another important legislative connection which should also be
remarked upon.
If a person who is an office bearer in an organisation says something to
which a seditious intention may be attributed, he or she opens that
organisation to prohibition.
And what is a seditious intention? It means, among other things, to urge a
change in the law by other than lawful means. Taken literally this would
mean that the advocacy of civil disobedience would be outlawed at a stroke.
I think here of a speech given by ACTU Secretary Greg Combet just a week or
so ago. In that speech he suggested, with considerable gravity, that trade
unionists would go to jail rather than comply with some aspects of the
Government’s new industrial relations legislation. Greg may need to be more
circumspect in the future.
The Government will retort that all this is a fuss about nothing. Political
speech will be protected by a ‘defence of good faith.’ But this defence is
drawn quite narrowly. It applies only to speech involving criticism of the
performance of government and which has as its object the reform of government.
Certainly, this will embrace political speech that is measured and
constructive but what of speech that may be abusive or destructive — are we
to outlaw that?
What of speech that urges disaffection, disobedience, disillusionment or
dissent — are we to prohibit that?
What of artistic portrayals of politics that are relentless in their bite,
bitterness, satire or negativity — shall we criminalise them?
What of journalists inviting and then reporting views that may be extreme,
ugly or discreditable — will we censor them? It is no wonder that the major
media organisations are up in arms about sedition.
It is important to remember that authoritarian regimes generally have two
legal means at their disposal to crush dissent. The first is the legal
prohibition of oppositional speech. The next is the detention without trial
of dissenting speakers.
Again I want to emphasise that we are nowhere near this political junction
yet. But we would be foolish not to evaluate these laws according to their
potential application in the future, as well as upon their impact in the
present.
But, in the present, I don’t think it unreasonable to say — with the
combination of the anti-terror laws embracing detention without trial as
they do, and the sedition laws inducing a chilling effect on political
speech as they will — that we may be witnessing, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, the stealthy erection of the scaffolding of repression.
This should be of very deep concern to us all.
And it requires countervailing action. These are laws that we must resist.
We should demand their withdrawal.
And we must agitate for countervailing legal measures. By far the most
important of these is the enactment in Australia of human rights legislation.
This is why New Matilda’s campaign for a Commonwealth Human Rights Act is
so important. It is more urgent now than at any time since, in chillingly
reminiscent circumstances, Robert Menzies declared ‘war’ on communism.
Go then to New Matilda’s website and examine the draft Human Rights Act for
yourselves. Examine it, evaluate it, criticise it, talk to others about it,
say that it’s brilliant or bunk. Let us know what you think.
The task is imperative — join in the debate.
This is an edited version of a speech delivered at ‘SEDITION!’ at the
Sydney Theatre, on 13 November 2005.
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=1135
====================================
12. US confirms white phosphorus use in Fallujah
====================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Wednesday, November 16, 2005. 6:01pm (AEDT)
The United States military has confirmed that its use of white phosphorus
to quell last year's insurgency in the Iraqi city of Fallujah went beyond
creating smokescreens and illumination shells.
US officials now say white phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon in
the Fallujah assault, something the Pentagon has previously denied.
While the use of white phosphorous is not illegal and it is not classified
as a chemical weapon, analysts say the disclosure is a public relations
blow for the US military.
A spokesman for the Pentagon, Colonel Barry Venable, has explained how the
US military used the substance.
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," he said.
"One technique is to fire a white phosphorous round or rounds into the
position, because the combined effects of the fire and smoke will drive
them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives."
"White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon.
They are not outlawed or illegal."
He denied media reports that US forces used white phosphorus against civilians.
Italy's state television RAI claimed last week the highly flammable
munitions were used against insurgents and civilians in Fallujah in
November last year.
The RAI documentary, Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre, said the US military
used a kind of napalm and white phosphorus in the battle, a claim denied by
the US State Department.
Robert Tuttle, US ambassador to Britain, wrote in a letter published by The
Independent newspaper on Tuesday that "US forces do not use napalm or white
phosphorus as weapons".
-BBC/AFP
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1508360.htm
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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
.
|
|
 |
|
