|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 28 November 2005
|
Project SafeCom
|
Nov 27, 2005 14:22 PST
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 28 November 2005
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. 'Guantanamo Bay' comes to remote Aussie island
2. Mother challenges detainee claim
3. Vanstone to review another deportee
4. Free care for asylum seekers
5. At risk of exile after so many years
6. Long time resident escapes deportation
7. Permanent resident granted bridging visa
8. Families of deportees must accept some responsibility: Ruddock
9. Sedition laws may be ditched
10. Pressure mounts for sedition laws to be delayed
11. Teen detention stays in govt terror bill
12. Legalising abuse of power
13. The church must speak out on terror laws
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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. 'Guantanamo Bay' comes to remote Aussie island
======================================
The Australian
Ryan Emery and Mark Dodd
November 28, 2005
WELCOME to Australia's newest detention facility -- a $210million, 800-bed
"immigration reception and processing centre" that Christmas Islanders fear
will be our very own Guantanamo Bay.
Still under construction and not due to be operational until late next
year, the controversial development on the island, 1400km off Australia's
northwest coast, has residents concerned about the prospect of having
imprisoned detainees and possible terror suspects as their neighbours.
Outspoken Shire President Gordon Thompson says residents are also worried
about the effects the detention centre will have on the island's tourism
industry.
"We're not building tourism based on a prison tour," he said, also voicing
fears that residents would be barred from areas on the northwest point of
the island.
Another resident complained that access to popular fishing and snorkelling
spots on the island, including Hugh's Waterfall, would be limited.
A Department of Immigration spokesman told The Australian that when
construction of the Christmas Island facility was finished, a review was
likely to be taken on whether to close some mainland detention centres such
as Baxter in South Australia.
"Its (Christmas Island) only use is as an immigration reception and
processing centre," he said.
Mr Thompson, who is opposed to the imprisonment of refugees, said the
centre was being built on the island in an effort to avoid public scrutiny.
A resident of eight years, two as shire president, Mr Thompson said he did
not trust the federal Government because it ignored the concerns of the
1500-strong community.
"There's a sense the commonwealth will do what it wants," he said.
"You've got to be a little suspicious of a government that lets its own
people be held in Guantanamo Bay, like David Hicks.
"It's a long way from the mainland where the lawyers and trouble-makers are.
"We'll be kept away from it (the processing centre)."
Azmi Yon, president of the island's Malay association, has lived for 37
years on the island and wants the federal Government to leave it alone.
Mr Yon said locals were confused and did not know if the centre would just
be used for refugees or as a Guantanamo-style prison.
"We need something from them black and white to say what it is," Mr Yon
said. "Tell us something, don't keep us in the dark.
"People here have that feeling that when something big is being built away
from the media -- it's not fishy, it's smelly."
Mr Yon said the island, currently experiencing the famous march of the
spawning red crabs, was home to a harmonious group of Chinese, Malays and
Europeans who respected each other's cultures. "Why disturb an isolated and
unique environment when you can (build the centre) somewhere else," he said.
Mr Yon, who is also opposed to the mandatory detention of refugees, spent
last Wednesday afternoon entertaining one of several newly arrived
Indonesian detainees.
The detainee, his wife and his infant children are allowed to live in the
community under the Government's new detainment laws.
But their three companions will remain the sole inhabitants of the
Christmas Island detention centre -- a moth-balled facility that was
reopened for the seven from Indonesian West Timor on November 17.
Refugee advocates and Democrat and Greens senators said the asylum-seekers
were "shunted" to the remote facility at huge cost, raising doubts about
the Howard Government's promise to detain families with children only as a
"last resort".
Mr Thomson said the council had not been notified the detention centre was
being reopened.
They were the first asylum-seekers apprehended in Australian waters since a
group of Vietnamese arrived off Broome more than two years ago.
The group arrived by boat at Honeymoon Beach near Kalumburu on the
northwest Kimberley coast on November 5 asking for directions to the
nearest city.
Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett has expressed concern that children are
again being kept in detention despite a government promise it would be a
last resort.
The Christmas Island centre was mothballed in late July when the last group
of detained asylum-seekers, including three children, were granted
temporary protection visas as part of the softening of the Government's
immigration policy.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17385922%255E2702,00.html
==========================
2. Mother challenges detainee claim
==========================
The Australian
Vanda Carson
November 28, 2005
A COMPENSATION claim by a 10-year-old who says he suffers post-traumatic
stress after a stay in an immigration detention centre has been challenged
by his mother, who says his problems were triggered by his treatment in Iran.
Former detainee Shayan Badraie is claiming damages from the commonwealth
and a former operator of Australia's immigration centres for negligence,
claiming they were recklessly indifferent to his plight.
But his estranged mother, Parvin Jaleeli, has signed a statement submitted
to the NSW Supreme Court claiming her son suffered trauma at the hands of
his father in Iran and was already disturbed upon arrival in Australia as
an illegal immigrant in March 2000.
Her evidence may be used to contradict his argument that his injuries were
suffered in detention at South Australia's Woomera detention centre,
Sydney's Villawood and in foster care.
The NSW Supreme Court damages suit for mental anguish, injuries and
disabilities is the first of its kind to go to trial in Australia.
Ms Jaleeli also claims her ex-husband -- Mohammad Saeed Badraie -- lied
about his family's religion to claim refugee status.
Shayan arrived in Australia with his father and stepmother in March 2000
and was detained between the ages of five and seven.
Ms Jaleeli claims the family could have returned to Iran without fearing
persecution.
She says her son was kidnapped by his father, whom she divorced when Shayan
was 16 months old.
She is seeking custody.
Mr Badraie is named as Shayan's tutor in the civil suit against the
commonwealth and former operators of Australia's immigration centres for
negligence and damages, claiming they were recklessly indifferent to the
fact that detention was harming him.
In 2001, Shayan was in hospital for more than three months.
The commonwealth says Ms Jaleeli's evidence goes to the credit of Shayan's
father and step-mother, Shayan's principal witnesses. They hope to attack
Shayan's claims by proving his developmental delays and behavioural
problems were caused by his upbringing and treatment in Iran.
His stepmother has been accused of discouraging Shayan from eating when he
was in hospital in 2001.
Judge Peter Johnson will decide this week whether Ms Jaleeli can be called
as a witness.
If he agrees, she will either be brought from the northwestern border
province of Kermanshah to testify in Sydney, or to Kuala Lumpur where she
could give evidence via video or in person with the court relocating to
Malaysia. Shayan's lawyers have argued her evidence should not be accepted.
In a judgment handed down last week, Justice Johnson said the testimony was
important to key facts of the case and to the credibility of key witnesses.
But he also had to consider the disruption caused by calling a new witness
in the case, which was already running over time.
The case has been adjourned and will resume hearing next year.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17383830%255E2702,00.html
============================
3. Vanstone to review another deportee
============================
The Age
By Jewel Topsfield, Canberra
November 26, 2005
Two days after deported Melbourne man Robert Jovicic vowed he would die on
the steps of the Australian embassy in Serbia unless he was allowed home,
Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has agreed to review a similar case.
Fatih Tuncok, 39, has been in Villawood detention centre for almost three
years, facing deportation to Turkey after his residency visa was cancelled
on character grounds.
But his lawyer, Michaela Byers, yesterday learnt Mr Tuncok, who has lived
in Australia since he was six, would be released on a temporary visa while
his case was reviewed.
Ms Byers said she believed the adverse publicity surrounding the
deportation of Mr Jovicic, who is now stateless and destitute after the
Serbian Government refused to recognise him as a citizen, had prompted the
Government to review Mr Tuncok's case.
Ms Byers, who also represents Mr Jovicic, said she believed both men should
be entitled to an absorbed person's visa, because they had lived for so
long in Australia.
"The law states that if you become absorbed into the Australian community
you cease to be an immigrant, so you are no longer a non-citizen," she said.
"You are treated the same as an Australian citizen and are no longer under
the control of the Migration Act."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/vanstone-to-review-another-depo
rtee/2005/11/25/1132703379527.html
=======================
4. Free care for asylum seekers
=======================
The Age
By Tom Noble, Health Editor
November 26, 2005
THE State Government has ordered public hospitals to stop charging asylum
seekers for medical services after it was revealed some hospitals used debt
collectors to recoup fees.
Some public hospitals charge asylum seekers — who have no Medicare card and
cannot work — for treatment, regarding them as foreign visitors.
A woman was told this week it would cost $2800 to have a baby at Monash
Medical Centre. The patient, who lives near the hospital, has since been
told she may get free care at the Royal Women's Hospital, about 25
kilometres away.
Others have been charged more than $100 for emergency department visits.
Health Minister Bronwyn Pike has instructed her department to tell all
hospitals that no asylum seeker should have to pay for medical treatment.
Ms Pike's spokesman, Ben Hart, said some hospitals already waived fees.
"This is to identify those few hospitals that don't do it, and get a
uniform system in place," he said.
"The minister has strong views about providing services to people who are
extremely vulnerable, some of the most vulnerable in this country. If we,
as a community, can't provide them with the most basic health service, that
is very concerning."
About 2000 asylum seekers are on the E class bridging visa in Victoria. It
provides them with no medical support and forbids them from taking paid
work. Some have been on these visas for years.
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre health program co-ordinator Joanne Kirk said
in most weeks she learned of an asylum seeker being charged for a hospital
visit. Most hospitals issued bills, although many waived the fee if an
explanatory letter was written to them.
But some hospitals refused to negotiate and gave the bills to debt collectors.
Community health nurse Elischka Sageman said she rang Monash Medical Centre
on Monday on behalf of a pregnant Sri Lankan asylum seeker, asking whether
the woman could give birth at the hospital.
"They were fairly adamant. They laid the charges out for me," said Ms
Sageman, a midwife. The $2800 fee for a three-night stay included the
delivery suite, but not additional treatments or tests, such as ultrasounds.
"I said, this woman doesn't have an income or a Medicare card, and is
unable to pay, can we negotiate? And she said no. They are charged, and
seen, as overseas visitors. She suggested I ring around other hospitals."
Ms Sageman said the Royal Women's Hospital said if the asylum seeker went
through the social work department, an arrangement could be made. "They
have waived fees in the past," Ms Sageman said.
Kim Minett, a spokesman for Southern Health — the hospital network that
runs Monash Medical Centre, and on Thursday night won Premier Steve Bracks'
award for best health network — said the hospital was sympathetic to
whether a patient could pay.
"I am not aware of that happening (money being charged) to any asylum
seeker," he said.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/free-care-for-asylum-seekers/2005/11/25/1132703376892.html
===========================
5. At risk of exile after so many years
===========================
Sydney Morning Herald
November 28, 2005
The battle is on over deporting non-citizen criminals, writes Joseph Kerr.
AFTER 2½ years, cancer won Gerard Michael Coleman his release from
immigration detention. But it wasn't the disease that won him his freedom.
A Scot by birth, Coleman lived in Australia for more than three decades
without becoming a citizen. All his family - his parents, two brothers and
a sister - live here. Like other non-citizens who have committed criminal
acts, he fell foul of the Immigration Department in 2003 after the
Government decided he was of such bad character his right to stay here
should end.
He had spent five years in prison in various stretches for breaching
apprehended violence orders made by his wife, driving a stolen vehicle
while drunk, possession of marijuana and assaulting police, he says. But
when 12 local, federal and immigration agents came to arrest him at his
mother's home he had been in Australia so long he didn't even know he
needed a visa.
"I emigrated," he says. "Why should I have one?"
Like other long-term residents with criminal histories the Government
decides it doesn't want to keep - the Migration Act allows for visa
cancellations and hence deportations on bad character grounds - Coleman was
sent to Villawood detention centre, where he idled for half as long again
as his five years in prison.
"It's a lot longer than any [single] stretch I've done in jail," he says.
He was conditionally released in August after being diagnosed with tongue
cancer. He has had half his tongue removed, some of the lining inside his
throat, and part of his jaw. Doctors tell him he has only weeks to live.
But a few weeks ago he suddenly became a beneficiary of a court decision
effectively offering him immunity from deportation. In a single stroke, he
won back his permanent residency and, for what it's worth in the short time
he has left to live, the right to work.
"That was good of them," he says. "They told me I could drive a car and go
back to work."
Coleman is one of 12 people to have been released from immigration
detention since a Federal Court decision with profound implications for
long-term Australian residents without citizenship. Instead of being liable
for potential removal if they commit a crime - no matter how many decades
they have been living here - they may be considered to be "absorbed"
Australians, possibly saving them from deportation.
The man involved in the key case, Stefan Nystrom, lived all his life bar
the first 27 days in Australia, having been born in Sweden because
complications in his mother's pregnancy prevented her flying back here to
give birth.
He had no meaningful connections with Sweden. He had never travelled there,
spoke no Swedish, and was unfamiliar with his Swedish family.
Nystrom was by common measure of bad character: he had been sentenced to
lengthy terms in jail for offences including aggravated rape of a 10-year
old boy and armed robbery, according to the Federal Magistrates Court.
But in a judgement that was highly critical of immigration officials in
July, the Federal Court showed great unease about the move to cancel his
right to be in Australia and deport him to Sweden.
"He is only an 'alien' by the barest of threads," justices Michael Moore
and Roger Gyles found. "However, if the decision under challenge here
stands he will be deported to Sweden and permanently banished from
Australia. That result causes us a … sense of disquiet … [Mr Nystrom] has
indeed behaved badly, but no worse than many of his age who have also lived
as members of the Australian community all their lives but who happen to be
citizens. The difference is the barest of technicalities."
The court found it difficult "to envisage the bona fide use of [bad
character grounds] to cancel the permanent absorbed visa of a person of
over 30 years of age who has spent all of his life in Australia [and] has
all of his relevant family in Australia".
The Government is seeking leave to appeal the Nystrom case to the High
Court, but a spokesman for the department says "all people who have been
identified as being affected by the Nystrom decision have been immediately
released from detention".
Coleman's lawyer, Michaela Byers, has three similar cases on her books and
believes there may be many more people affected by the decision, including
some already deported.
Greens Senator Kerry Nettle has called on the Government to stop deporting
people for crimes for which they have served their time, calling them
"double jeopardy deportations".
While the department says they released Coleman because he appears to be
like Nystrom, he couldn't be more cynical about their motives. "It gets
them out of a death in custody," he says.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/at-risk-of-exile-after-so-many-years/2005/11/27/1133026350590.html
==============================
6. Long time resident escapes deportation
==============================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Friday, November 25, 2005. 12:28pm (AEDT)
A long-term Australian resident with a criminal conviction is considering
suing for compensation after his visa cancellation was overturned.
The Immigration Department has admitted that Ahmad Salah El-Masri's visa
should not have been cancelled because he was entitled to permanent residency.
Mr El-Masri arrived in Australia when he was 12 and has lived here for
almost 30 years.
The Immigration Act says those facing criminal charges that attract more
than one year of imprisonment can be deported.
But in the Federal Court, the Immigration Department has admitted that Mr
Elmazri was legally 'absorbed' into Australian society and his visa could
not be cancelled.
His lawyer says she is now considering a compensation claim for Mr Elmazri
and two other clients who were detained for more than two years before
their deportations were overturned.
Mr El-Masri's deportation would have added to the 233 former permanent
residents who have been deported in the past three years due to criminal
convictions.
Those deported include former Melbourne man Robert Jovicic, whose family is
fighting his deportation to Serbia, where he has never previously lived.
Another man, Fatih Tuncok, is due to be deported to Turkey after racking up
a significant criminal record, including a conviction for armed robbery.
Mr Tuncok moved to Australia when he was six-years-old, while Mr Jovicic
moved to Australia from France when he was two.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1516759.htm
===============================
7. Permanent resident granted bridging visa
===============================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Friday, November 25, 2005. 3:12pm (AEDT)
A man threatened with deportation has been granted a bridging visa and will
be allowed to stay in Australia pending results of a character check.
Fatih Tuncok is being held in Sydney's Villawood detention centre and his
psychologist has warned he would not cope if he was forced to leave Australia.
Official documentation authorising Mr Tuncok's deportation had cited his
criminal record.
But a spokesman for Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said his situation
is being reviewed and he has been granted a 'removal pending bridging visa'.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1516940.htm
=================================================
8. Families of deportees must accept some responsibility: Ruddock
=================================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Friday, November 25, 2005. 4:16pm (AEDT)
The former immigration minister, Philip Ruddock, has struck back at those
questioning some deportation decisions.
The Immigration Department has been criticised in recent days for its
decision to deport Melbourne man Robert Jovicic to Serbia, when he had
grown up in Australia.
The department is now reviewing a decision to deport a man to Turkey on
character grounds, and in the Federal Court today the department admitted
it should not have cancelled the visa of a third man with a criminal
background.
Mr Ruddock, who is now the Attorney-General, says while he does not want to
comment on individual cases, the families of those facing deportation on
character grounds have to accept some responsibility.
"The point I make - when there are family members out there barracking now
to bring them back, I ask where were they in providing adequate support and
assistance and advice to family members about their vulnerability when they
were committing criminal acts," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1516991.htm
=======================
9. Sedition laws may be ditched
=======================
The Australian
Simon Kearney
November 26, 2005
SECURITY agencies have revealed that sedition offences in the new
anti-terror laws are primarily designed to curb the use of the internet and
books to promote terrorism.
The written explanations came after senators examining the new laws told
the agencies they could be forced to recommend that the sedition offences
be dumped in the face of overwhelming evidence that they were unnecessary.
The new laws seek to make it an offence to urge a group of people to use
force or violence against another group of people.
"The best legal advice we have to the committee is that there is no conduct
that they would catch that is not already caught," Liberal senator George
Brandis told a witness appearing before the Senate legal and constitutional
affairs committee last week.
"It is difficult for the committee to come to a recommendation other than
that which the majority of submissions has come to," fellow Liberal Brett
Mason told Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner John Lawler.
In a response this week, Mr Lawler said the Criminal Code did not clearly
outlaw publications promoting terrorism. "There is no clear offence in the
Criminal Code for possessing, publishing, importing or selling
publications, recruitment pamphlets and videos that advocate terrorism," he
said.
The drafter of the laws, Attorney-General's Department assistant secretary
Geoff McDonald, said sedition had become a more relevant offence with the
growth of the internet.
"The web and computer technology has made it much easier to disseminate
material that urges violence, in much the same way government has
recognised that it has made child porn easier to disseminate," Mr McDonald
said.
He used the example of a website teaching people how to shoot foreigners in
Jakarta.
"It may be that some of the people who gave testimony to the committee may
not be as in touch as the law enforcement and security and intelligence
agencies are in understanding the penetration of the web among young
people," Mr McDonald said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17367527
%255E2702,00.html
=====================================
10. Pressure mounts for sedition laws to be delayed
=====================================
Sydney Morning Herald
By Tom Allard
November 28, 2005
THE Government will come under intense pressure to make big changes in the
sedition provisions in its counter-terrorism laws, with its senators
expected to report today that these are deeply flawed.
Sources close to the Senate committee examining the laws say its
much-awaited majority report will urge the Government to delay legislating
on sedition, even if it enacts other elements of the counter-terrorism bill.
Sedition laws aim to criminalise the incitement of terrorism, racial
violence or attacks on Australian troops but are under fire for being
poorly drafted and curbing freedom of expression.
The report says the laws should be redrafted to address concerns about the
apparent removal of the requirement for prosecutors to show a person's
comments are "intended" to provoke terrorism or acts of violence against
Australian troops.
Someone could be jailed for seven years for inadvertently provoking a
terrorist act through a speech, broadcast or article if it could be shown
they were "reckless" in their remarks.
There is also disquiet at the so-called "good faith" defence that protects
people from sedition charges and other aspects of the counter-terrorism
laws that impinge on freedom of speech.
Federal police, for example, could make journalists hand over notebooks and
other material without a magistrate's warrant.
One source said that there was a "great deal of common ground" between
Government and Opposition senators. While opinions diverged on some issues,
the consensus view had "sharp teeth".
Indeed, there were suggestions yesterday that Tuesday's regular meeting of
Coalition MPs in Canberra could be pushed back a day to enable passions to
settle before what is expected to be a lively debate.
Labor believes the sedition rules should be scrapped.
A spokeswoman for the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, said he was unaware
of the contents of the Senate report but "prepared to consider any
sensible, practical amendments".
Polls suggest the public strongly supports the anti-terrorism laws, and the
Prime Minister, John Howard, wants them passed in the next fortnight.
Mr Howard used his new weekly "column" in regional newspapers to defend the
sedition laws. He said there was a distinct difference in the sedition laws
between humour and comment and helping incite terrorism or violence against
our troops.
"There will be no limits on freedom of speech or freedom of the media as a
result of the bill introduced by the Government in October," he said.
"[But] if people move to assist insurgents in Iraq, to provide weapons or
funding for weapons, they will be at risk of moving beyond legitimate
criticism to acting in a way intended to put members of the Australian
defence forces at risk.
"So will language designed to incite action against our troops in Iraq." He
also insisted that "there cannot be inadvertent commission of sedition; the
urging must be intentional".
However, media lawyers, critics and Liberal senators have all said the new
laws do not specify that any seditious acts be intentional, unlike the old
laws.
Senator Bob Brown of the Greens said yesterday that he had referred the
anti-terrorism bill to the UN Human Rights Committee. He says it breaches
international law. But the Government insists the bill complies with the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pressure-mounts-for-sedition-laws-to-be-delayed/2005/11/27/1133026350290.html
==============================
11. Teen detention stays in govt terror bill
==============================
The Age
November 27, 2005 - 5:39PM
Debate on the anti-terror bill resumes in parliament this week, with the
government standing firm on the need for preventative detention of 16 to
18-year-olds as potential suicide bombers.
The preventative detention provision of the controversial Anti-Terrorism
Bill, modelled on a similar British measure, allows for the detention of
someone thought to be involved in or aware of a terrorist act for up to 14
days.
The government insists its legislation complies with the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
But Greens Senator Bob Brown announced says he had referred the bill to the
United Nations Human Rights Committee for assessment on whether it conforms
to the covenant.
A Senate committee which took evidence on the legislation last week and
received almost 300 submissions - most opposing - reports on Monday.
In a response to a question on notice during the hearing, the Australian
Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) said detaining those aged 16-18
was consistent with its existing questioning regime which accepted it might
be necessary to detain young people in some circumstances.
"For example, international experience confirms that persons under the age
of 18 are actively involved in terrorist activity including suicide
bombings, and it is conceivable that persons under the age of 18 may be
involved with or associating with terrorists," it said.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Philip Ruddock said to portray this as
ASIO concerns about an emerging teen terror threat was drawing a long bow.
But he said improved legislation was necessary in the knowledge that "young
impressionable people" had been recruited as terrorists in other countries.
"It would be negligent of the government not to cover off on that kind of
potential concern while it is conducting a comprehensive review and upgrade
of its legislation," the spokeswoman said.
Muslim community leader Keysar Trad said those who recruited young people
should be the real targets.
"If they have evidence to suggest that any person, any preacher is doing
that to young people I'd like to see them stopping the teacher rather than
becoming hysterical about young people," he told Sky Television."
Senator Brown said he had despatched the terror bill to the United Nations
Human Rights Committee for assessment on whether it conformed to the ICCPR.
"Extensive evidence before the Senate inquiry showed how these terror laws
breach Australia's legal obligations under international law," he said in a
statement.
"We will be asking the UN to review the laws in light of the ICCPR."
But in evidence to the inquiry, the Attorney General's department said the
ICCPR allowed some rights to be restricted on national security grounds.
"The Government is satisfied that, to the extent that any rights are
restricted by the Bill, their restriction is justified on the basis of
national security and, accordingly, is permitted under the ICCPR," it said.
Prime Minister John Howard also appears set to stand firm on the issue of
sedition, after dismissing claims that sedition provisions would allow the
government to suppress dissenting views.
Mr Howard, in his regular column on current issues, said in 30 years in
politics, he had been the butt of countless thousands of jokes.
"But taking the puff out of someone in a cartoon, or puncturing an ego in a
play, is a vastly different proposition from encouraging impressionable
young people to become suicide bombers or inciting violence against our
soldiers," he said.
"What will not be tolerated will be actions or words designed to harm
Australian troops."
© 2005 AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Teen-detention-stays-in-govt-terror-bill/2005/11/27/1133026339157.html
=====================
12. Legalising abuse of power
=====================
The Age
November 25, 2005
Without safeguards, the new anti-terrorism laws open the way for serious
mistakes and abuses, writes David Neal.
Support for anti-terrorism laws has been swept along by claims of how
successful they have been overseas. But given the highly volatile
atmosphere surrounding terrorism, the fact that police will be acting on
the basis of vague information that would not justify a charge, and
predicting a possible future act, the chances of error and abuse are much
greater than normal.
With the exception of the shooting of Jean de Menezes in the London tube,
the Australian public has heard little about cases now emerging from the
United States and England of abuses of those laws.
Take the US case of Abdallah Higazy, an Egyptian student staying in a hotel
overlooking the twin towers on September 10-11, 2001. A security guard said
he had found an aviation radio in Higazy's room. Higazy denied the radio
was his. He was told that he had failed a lie detector test and then
confessed to owning the radio.
After weeks of detention in solitary confinement, there was a public
announcement that he was to be prosecuted. In response, a pilot came
forward to say that he owned the radio and had left it in another room in
the hotel. The security guard admitted that he had fabricated the
allegation against Higazy. Higazy said he had only admitted ownership of
the radio because the FBI threatened harm to his family if he did not talk.
This week The Washington Post reported apparently wrongful convictions in
the "Detroit sleeper cell" case, touted as one of the Justice Department's
triumphs against terrorism. The case began less than a week after the
September 11 attacks with the arrest of three suspects in a Detroit
apartment. It was only after two of the men were convicted of supporting
terrorism that the case's flimsiness emerged.
A federal grand jury is now investigating whether the lead prosecutor
should be charged with suppressing evidence favourable to the defence,
including evidence contradicting its claim that a drawing was a map of a
military hospital target.
Frenchman David Mery has his own
website(http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html) about his arrest at
London's Southwark tube station in July this year - three weeks after
suicide bombers killed 52 people on the city's transport network.
Mery was sitting in the station with a rucksack on his back, sending an
SMS, and reading an article when he was surrounded by uniformed police who
handcuffed him and told him he was being arrested under the Terrorism Act.
They said his behaviour was suspicious: he had not looked at the police
when he came into the station, he kept his rucksack close to him, he was
wearing a jacket that was too warm for the season (it was 15 that day), and
he had played with his mobile phone and then taken a paper out of his
jacket. He was taken to the police station, searched, fingerprinted, had
DNA samples taken, interviewed and placed in a cell. He was bailed the next
day and the police later decided to take no further action.
These sorts of errors and abuses are inevitable when sweeping new powers
based on suspicions about vaguely defined offences are introduced. If we
must have such powers, there must be mechanisms for defence lawyers to put
the blowtorch on flimsy or overblown prosecution cases. Despite the public
promises, the protections in the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 are
extraordinarily weak.
A person subject to a preventive detention order has no right to a court
hearing at all during its 48-hour period. To get an initial order, one
federal police officer applies to a senior federal police officer. This is
a Kafka-esque parody of normal warrant procedures requiring police to apply
to an independent court. These applications should be subject to court
scrutiny, except in an extreme emergency.
Once arrested, a person charged with murder must be brought before an
independent court within four hours under Commonwealth law. The court
exercises initial scrutiny of the arrest and the person can apply for bail.
This is what happened in the cases of the 17 arrested on terrorism charges
on November 8. By contrast, an initial preventive detention order can last
for 24 hours and there is no independent scrutiny of the merits of that
decision.
Worse still, if the federal police wish to extend detention for a further
24 hours, they can apply to a judicial officer who has agreed to be on a
list compiled by the government. Police will naturally choose a sympathetic
judicial officer. Courts prevent litigants choosing their judge. But these
judicial officers are acting in a personal capacity, not as members of a
court, and it seems police will be free to choose from anyone on the list.
At this point - 20 hours after someone actually charged with an offence
would have to be brought before a court - the extension hearing will occur
in the absence of the detainee. Although the bill requires the judicial
officer to review the "merits" of preventive detention, this is done
without any involvement of the detainee. This is a travesty of due process.
The detainee will have no opportunity to apply for release based on
innocent explanation, lying informers (the Higazy and Detroit cases),
mistaken identity, or just bizarre suspicions like the Mery case. Detainees
should have the right to come before a court within four hours to argue -
in an initial hearing like a bail hearing - that there's no reasonable
basis for the order.
And these hearings need to be open to media scrutiny (subject to
application for suppression on security grounds) so that, as in the Higazy
case, the pilot can come forward, or, in the cases of Mery and Menezes,
police errors will be exposed. Police must know they will be publicly
accountable.
If these sorts of existing protections were workable for the 17 charged
with terrorist offences this month, why are they missing from the bill?
David Neal is a senior Melbourne barrister and former Victorian law reform
commissioner.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/legalising-abuse-of-power/2005/11/24/1132703313253.html
================================
13. The church must speak out on terror laws
================================
The Age
November 25, 2005
The Christian viewpoint is missing from a debate crucial to our society,
writes Muriel Porter.
The story goes that the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church was in
solemn assembly discussing church vestments when the 1917 Bolshevik
Revolution took to the streets of St Petersburg. It may well be apocryphal,
but it is a story that haunts perceptive church people. They often fear
they will get so caught up in internal religious issues that they miss
really important matters confronting the wider community.
The St Petersburg story is resonating now within the Christian community,
as some begin to realise the inherent dangers in the proposed anti-terror
legislation. The Melbourne Anglican Diocese's social responsibilities
committee has begun to talk through their concerns, while Pax Christi
Victoria, the local branch of the international ecumenical peace
organisation, plans to hold a forum about the legislation in Melbourne next
Monday.
It would be so easy, though, for the churches not to get on board this
particular issue. They are already fully stretched debating the industrial
relations legislation. They are extraordinarily united in their concerns on
that matter. After all, the churches are themselves major employers with
their many parishes, agencies, schools and other affiliated bodies. They
understand employment issues.
And they are concerned about the impact on family life - the bread and
butter of contemporary church discourse. Not to mention the impact a
totally deregulated workforce will have on traditional Sunday worship and
the great Christian festivals.
The anti-terror legislation is a little outside their usual frame of
reference. Like most Australians, the churches have to date not had any
real cause to distrust governments when it comes to issues of internal
national governance. They have protested vociferously about the treatment
of asylum seekers and they don't like the Australian involvement in Iraq,
but they had not imagined any real danger to the fundamentals of the
Australian way of life.
Like the Christian churches in Germany as Hitler rose to power, they would
prefer to hope for the best and trust that genuine democracy will prevail.
It is so tempting to turn a blind eye, or to assume that the lawyers'
associations and Amnesty International and other bodies more practised in
this area will offer sufficient response.
Besides, the churches are all rather preoccupied at the moment. The
Anglican Church in Melbourne has just farewelled one archbishop and is
gearing up to elect another. St Paul's Cathedral is undergoing a mammoth
restoration program, keeping everyone busy even without the prospect of
King Kong featuring on the spire.
Meanwhile, the struggle for female bishops is still close to the surface in
much of the Anglican Church in this country, given questions concerning
their legal status are before the church's highest tribunal.
Like the Anglican Church internationally, the Catholic Church is concerned
about gay clergy. While the Anglicans disagree over whether practising gay
men (and women) should be ordained and gay partnerships blessed, the
Catholic Church has gone one step further. A papal mandate is expected any
day requiring seminaries to pry closely into the sexual orientation of
potential ordinands. Men of clear homosexual disposition, regardless of
their commitment to celibacy, will find acceptance as priests much more
difficult, it is believed.
More widely, sexual abuse scandals and concerns have taken up enormous time
and energy among church leaders of all denominations around the country.
All these issues are not quite as peripheral as church vestments were in
1917, but they are distracting the church leadership - and parishioners -
from the real dangers in this legislation to the democratic freedoms and
safeguards we had assumed were sacrosanct.
The churches in Russia and Germany ultimately paid a high price for their
disengagement and collusion. By contrast, the Christian churches in South
Africa, which led the struggle against apartheid, remain a shining example
to the power of Christian witness when it mobilises against injustice and
inhumanity.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, now retired, is still revered worldwide as a great
contemporary prophet. He not only refused to turn his back on that
life-and-death struggle but also worked hard to ensure that once apartheid
was dismantled, the often-predicted "bloodbath" did not happen.
The pre-Christmas season of advent is about to begin in the mainstream
churches. It is a season that carries stark warnings about the need to
remain watchful against the danger of injustice in all its forms. Perhaps
Christian people need, at the moment, to listen carefully to the modern-day
prophets in the wider community.
Dr Muriel Porter is a Melbourne Anglican laywoman.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-church-must-speak-out-on-terror-laws/2005/11/24/1132703313250.html
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| This is the Project SafeCom Newsletter - also published
-|| as the RAC-VIC Newsletter (Racvicnews) since July 2004 by agreement
-|| with RAC Victoria, which endorsed that their news service be
-|| managed by Project SafeCom. More information about us below.
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-||- Project SafeCom info
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Online archives of our News & Updates:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/safecom/read
Project SafeCom has operated a "virtually full-time" operations office
since TAMPA. At Project SafeCom, an Incorporated Association in Western
Australia, we exist from donations, the sale of some items via our website,
and from memberships. You can make a donation by transferring funds to our
account at Bendigo Community Bank Kulin, BSB Number 633-000. Account name:
Project SafeCom Inc., account 115643900, or by sending a cheque or money
order to our address below.
P.O. Box 364 - Narrogin WA 6312 - Phone 0417 090 130
+-+-+-+
LINKS:
+-+-+-+
ROYAL COMMISSION Petition: download it, print it, put it out - everywhere
around town: http://www.safecom.org.au/royal-commission.htm
The bLog - FIXING AUSTRALIA: http://www.safecom.org.au/fixing-australia.htm
What's New - this page lists all the new additions to the website -
hundreds of pages: http://www.safecom.org.au/whatsnew.htm
Project SafeCom events page: http://www.safecom.org.au/events.htm
The Reading Room: http://www.safecom.org.au/readings.htm
The Project SafeCom shop: http://www.safecom.org.au/products.htm
Our Baxter page: http://www.safecom.org.au/baxter.htm
Project SafeCom's No War position: http://www.safecom.org.au/no-war.htm
.
|
|
 |
|
