|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 30 November 2005
|
Project SafeCom
|
Nov 29, 2005 18:23 PST
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 30 November 2005
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. Terror laws rammed through without change
2. Revolting MPs resist Howard control orders
3. Uncertainty and doubt over sedition laws
4. Detention laws too great a power boost: lawyers
5. Wrong way, go back, but on they press
6. Forty-second Day of Villawood Hunger Strike: Greens Fear Looming
Tragedy
7. Feedback from the WA State ALP Conference
8. Youth concern on terror laws: study
9. Opposed to Anti-terror laws and sedition laws
10. Global warming set to hit Europe badly: agency
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| 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. Terror laws rammed through without change
=================================
The Age
By Brendan Nicholson
November 30, 2005
The Federal Government has used its numbers to ram its tough new
terrorism legislation through Parliament's lower house and reject changes
demanded by Coalition MPs.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock last night told Government backbenchers
he would not be adopting the main recommendations of a Coalition-led
Senate committee which wanted a controversial sedition section removed
and the sunset clause changed to ensure the law expired in five years
rather than 10.
Opposition amendments were defeated and the Government gagged debate at
9.30pm.
Labor backbencher Harry Quick and independent Peter Andren insisted that
the House record their opposition to the legislation.
A Labor spokesman said later he did not know it Mr Quick would be
disciplined for breaking ranks with his party, which had agreed to
support the bill.
Mr Ruddock said he wanted the bill passed as it was. The Australian Law
Reform Commission would be able to examine its sedition provisions after
it was enacted.
Lawyers and academics warned the committee that while the tough sedition
provisions were intended to prevent incitement to commit terrorist acts,
they could also curtail free speech and catch journalists, cartoonists,
and others making fair comment.
Mr Ruddock said he would consider minor changes among 52 recommendations
made by the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Legislation
Committee.
The committee wants the Government to remove restrictions on those under
preventive detention from communicating with their lawyers; oversight by
the Commonwealth Ombudsman and better protection for children aged 16 to
18.
On the sedition section, Mr Ruddock said he did not intend to remove a
provision that was designed to deal with people who urged the use of
violence to overthrow democratic institutions and other groups.
Committee chairwoman Marise Payne declined to say whether she would cross
the floor and vote with the Opposition to have the sedition section
removed.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/terror-laws-rammed-through-without-change/2005/11/29/1133026468311.html
=================================
2. Revolting MPs resist Howard control orders
=================================
The Age
By Michelle Grattan
November 30, 2005
Despite the ructions, the Government will have its way on the key
changes.
IT'S embarrassing — when you are a prime minister supposed to have
control of both houses of Parliament — to have to give sops to your own
side. The consolation is the sops don't have to be as big as when you
have to negotiate with the minor parties and Opposition.
The Government is tossing out tidbits all over in its unseemly rush to
get through its big measures — which free up industrial relations, push
people from welfare to work, and toughen counter-terrorism laws — and to
deal with the "rogue" issue of the abortion pill.
Barnaby Joyce has been bought off by allowing him to save Christmas (and
Good Friday, too). This was a clever compromise. People will not be able
to be sacked for refusing to work on "iconic" holidays.
But the legislation won't specify that workers have to be paid penalty
rates. So employer groups (which didn't want penalty rates to be
required, because they can already be traded away) have been placated —
while Joyce can argue these rates are protected because no one will work
without them.
Joyce can claim a win. So could the Nationals generally, if they chose.
But they have allowed the Liberals to throw them so much onto the
defensive over Joyce that they are embarrassed to do so. The irony is
that while Joyce is building a profile for the Nationals, he is under
siege from within. There was more criticism at the Nationals' meeting on
Monday.
It's a measure of the inferiority complex of the Nationals that Liberal
MPs are "revolting" all over the place, yet the Nationals are
apologetic when Joyce flexes his muscle.
There will be a few changes to the welfare-to-work legislation as a
result of an inquiry led by Coalition senators, which follows some
earlier compromises. The inquiry has recommended that single parents of
large families should not have to face such tough work requirements as
others.
The issue of whether the ban on RU486 should be lifted — a matter the
Democrats threw into the ring but Government MPs Sharman Stone and Mal
Washer pushed — has been, in essence, deregulated. John Howard yesterday
formally announced to his MPs that they would have a free vote, which
gets him out of trouble.
The counter-terrorism law remains the trickiest of these several big
items for the Government. It will get the bill through in this fortnight.
But the divisions within the Coalition have again been highlighted by the
robust bipartisan criticisms of the bill by a Senate inquiry chaired by
NSW Liberal senator Marise Payne, and including Brett Mason (Lib) and
Nigel Scullion (CLP).
Monday's report was the latest chapter in the back bench twisting the
Government's arm to modify this bill. Yet again, it's come down to a
struggle of wills, to see what further concessions the back bench can
extract. The backbenchers on the Senate committee have, in theory, the
power to force Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's hand, because of the
Senate numbers. But, unlike Joyce, they wouldn't cross the floor and
Howard and Ruddock know that.
The Senate committee urged a plethora of changes but the key ones are a
five-year sunset clause (instead of 10) and the deferral of the sedition
section until there is an inquiry by the Law Reform Commission.
Ruddock yesterday continued to oppose deferral — despite the overwhelming
good sense of the committee's recommendation and the fact that the
section is to be reviewed anyway next year.
Attention has now swung to the committee's fall-back recommendations on
sedition.
These would tighten the provisions prohibiting someone from urging
another person to assist Australia's enemies, to make it clear that they
have to be urging violence, and specify that to be found guilty of
sedition, a person has to have acted intentionally.
They would also include as a defence against sedition that statements
were made "for journalistic, educational, artistic, scientific,
religious or public interest purposes".
Ruddock insists "the law is not, in my view, flawed", but there
"may well be that there can be some nuancing" in relation to
guarantees about freedom of speech, so people aren't inhibited in making
criticisms of governments and urging policy changes.
The committee's fall-back changes on sedition go well beyond
"nuancing". But leaving that aside, Ruddock's remarks invite
the question of why he considers "nuances" only when he's
pressured.
Former PM Malcolm Fraser, delivering Melbourne University's Chancellor's
Human Rights Lecture last night, highlighted the weaknesses in the
sedition provisions that concern the committee. The bill's form, he
concluded, left considerable doubt "as to whether words, which may
well have a peaceful intent in the speaker, could be construed as
recklessly urging violence in the listener, even though there is no
direct link". There was a risk "that public comments, open
criticism of the government with whose policies one strongly disagrees,
could easily be caught by the proposed changes".
The fourth-term Howard Government can mostly do what it wants, and it
slags off those who disagree with it, especially on civil liberties
issues. It's a bit harder to do the latter when respected people in its
own ranks are agreeing with the critics, adding their voices to the calls
for change.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/revolting-mps-resist-howard-control-orders/2005/11/29/1133026469785.html
===============================
3. Uncertainty and doubt over sedition laws
===============================
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
Broadcast: 29/11/2005
Reporter: Geoff Hutchison
KERRY O'BRIEN: And now to sedition laws. One of the more contentious
aspects of the Government's new counter-terrorism bill that even the
government members of a Senate committee of inquiry want dumped. Although
the Attorney-General is resisting, as he made plain on this program last
night. Under the changes, those who urge others to use force or violence
against Australia's people or its institutions will face seven years
imprisonment if found guilty of the charge. But critics say sedition is
an archaic concept and that the criminal code already provides protection
against such behaviour. Among those voices of dissent, some of
Australia's best known cartoonists and satirists who claim they too could
now face the threat of jail. Geoff Hutchison reports.
LAURENCE MAHER, BARRISTER: Sedition is an old criminal offence going back
500 years, which was designed to prevent speech and conduct which was
thought to be a precursor to treason. So that, for example, if one were
foolish enough to suggest that the king was a fool then you faced
conviction and on conviction the penalty of death would be applied.
BILL LEAK, CARTOONIST, THE AUSTRALIAN: Sedition is a, sort of, basic
component of satire. If your cartoon or your satire can't be considered
as seditious then you're probably not doing a very good job.
GEOFF HUTCHISON: Bill Leak has been calling the "king of fool"
for a long time. But now he fears the controversial updating of
Australia's dormant sedition laws represents a profound attack on free
speech.
BILL LEAK: I wasn't really personally worried about it because I thought
I'm only a harmless cartoonist and all we ever do is make jokes and
exercise satire. Then I saw Mr Ruddock on TV saying that the cartoonists
and satirists had nothing to fear. That's when I went from alert to
alarmed.
GEOFF HUTCHISON: The new sedition legislation is just a slim part of the
Federal Government's anti-terror bill. Under its provisions, any person
found guilty of urging others to overthrow the constitution or government
or urging force or violence to be used against another community group or
Australia's defence forces, like those serving in Iraq, will now face
seven years imprisonment.
PHILIP RUDDOCK, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is an offence which will arise if
you make those comments recklessly and where an ordinary man would expect
that the outcome would be that people are encouraged to use force or
violence in the circumstances that I've outlined. That is a matter that
the Australian community wants to see addressed.
GEOFF HUTCHISON: Sedition has been part of the Crimes Act in Australia
since 1914. Barrister Laurence Maher is firmly of the belief the law has
only ever been used as a crude political tool to silence dissenting
voices.
LAURENCE MAHER: At national level, the last time there was a prosecution
was in 1953, the coronation year, when the Menzies government,
unsuccessfully as it turns out, prosecuted three members of the Communist
Party for an article in the run-up to the coronation, which was
scathingly critical of the royal family and went through the membership
of the royal family in very unflattering terms.
BILL LEAK: What worries me most is that the extensions to the laws, they
move the emphasis on to what a person says, rather than the results of
what a person has said. It's going to make it impossible, for example,
for a journalist to interview a terrorist or interview somebody who is
supportive of that terrorist's cause. That's deeply worrying because how
on earth are we to understand what motivates these people? How can we
learn how to deal with these people if we are forbidden to even ask them
the apposite questions?
GEOFF HUTCHISON: And Bill Leak is wondering what will happen to
cartoonists and satirists if they are perceived to have stepped over the
line. The next time they ridicule a politician, shame an institution or
expose corrupt practice, so vague is the language of the legislation,
it's open to broad interpretation.
BILL LEAK: I mean, how often do you sit around and say, "Oh, gee,
I'd like to kill so and so." What's going to happen? Someone
overhears you saying that, they take it literally and bang they're on to
the hotline. It is just absurd.
GEOFF HUTCHISON: Philip Ruddock says there's a good faith defence that
will protect commentators, cartoonists and satirists, but they seem to be
taking little comfort from government reassurances.
JOHN HOWARD, PM: People can still attack me and Mr Beazley and
lampoonists, as I am sure they will, without any fear of being put in the
slammer.
MAX GILLIES, SATIRIST: It's not up to him to tell us whether we should
make jokes at his expense or not. He's our servant. We're not his
servants.
GEOFF HUTCHISON: For a generation, Max Gillies has been urging
disaffection from government, Parliament, the Constitution and the
sovereign. Sedition, he says, is what a good satirist does.
MAX GILLIES: The definitions are so vague you never know what you might
say. You try and correct yourself every time you open your mouth. You try
and self-sensor, instinctively. This is what we've seen happening in -
perish the thought, and you're not allowed to say this - but what we've
seen happen in police states. This is exactly what it is like to live if
a police state where people have to think about how they express
themselves before they open their mouths because you don't know what the
consequences might be.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: You're saying, well, if it's an offence, people will be
more careful how they act. Well, I think that's a good thing. If people
are more careful and people won't be uttering words which are urging
people to use force or violence.
GEOFF HUTCHISON: But yesterday a Senate committee expressed strong
reservations. Led by the Government's own members, it called for a
sedition provisions to be removed from the anti-terror legislation until
they could be looked at more closely by the Australian Law Reform
Commission. In the meantime, Australia's cartoonists and satirists will
continue to practice their craft, pursuing their seditious right to call
the king a fool.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: We want to make it very clear that public comment,
debate, is something that is encouraged in our society - free speech. But
we want to make it clear that people cannot abuse that entitlement to
expose other people's lives to possible risk. That's what you are trying
to balance.
BILL LEAK: If you went away for sedition at least you could say you were
in good company because the first people that spring to mind are Jesus
Christ - they got him on sedition - and Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela
to name but a few. But, by gee, it would be a poor show if you got banged
away for four years just because someone didn't get the joke.
KERRY O'BRIEN: I guess you do take on a cartoonist at your own
peril.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1519523.htm
====================================
4. Detention laws too great a power boost: lawyers
====================================
Sydney Morning Herald
By Michael Pelly Legal Reporter
November 30, 2005
PREVENTIVE detention orders could be extended indefinitely under NSW
legislation that provides "immense power" to police, according
to some of the state's top lawyers.
A delegation from the NSW Bar Association told parliamentarians at
Macquarie Street yesterday morning that after the first 14 days,
authorities could simply change the date of an anticipated terrorist act
to keep a suspect behind bars.
The association's president, Michael Slattery, QC, said section 26K of
the Terrorism (Police Powers) Amendment could result in "open-ended
rolling preventative detention orders".
Debate on the bill was scheduled for yesterday, but will now take place
today despite threats from the Greens to defer any discussion until the
Commonwealth laws are passed.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre also told the meeting of MPs that it
could not understand the urgent need to pass the bill before Christmas
and that NSW should follow Victoria's lead and postpone debate for two
weeks.
"There is appalling lack of understanding about this bill so they
[the Government] have Parliament on the run," said the centre's
policy officer, Jane Stratton.
"We are meant to complement the Commonwealth regime but that isn't
in place."
Mr Slattery, as well as the Bar Association's treasurer, Robert Toner,
SC, and its executive director, Philip Selth, told MPs the bar also
feared lawyers would not see material relevant to a detention order and
believed police should provide clear reasons why a hearing should be held
in closed court.
However, the central concern was the scope of the detention orders. While
the state Attorney-General, Bob Debus, said there would be "rigorous
oversight by the Supreme Court", Section 26K (4) says "more
than one preventative detention order may be made in relation to the same
terrorist act".
Section 26K (7) says a "terrorist act ceases to be the same
terrorist act if there is a change in the date on which the terrorist act
is expected to occur".
"The orders are capable in effect of indefinite detention," Mr
Slattery said.
"Although the bill is said to provide only for 14 days detention,
one only has to change the expected date of the anticipated terrorist act
to permit open-ended rolling preventative detention orders. It is a
sleeper which could provide immense power to the authorities."
¦ YOUNG Australians worry new anti-terrorism laws infringe basic rights
and may lead to racism, a Human Rights Commission study of more than 1000
young people at high schools and youth clubs has found.
with AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/detention-laws-too-great-a-power-boost-lawyers/2005/11/29/1133026469466.html
==============================
5. Wrong way, go back, but on they press
==============================
The Age
Michelle Grattan
November 29, 2005
Talk about poetic justice! The Government allowed only a quick and dirty
Senate inquiry, but the committee still had time to find the most serious
shortcomings in this draconian counter-terrorism legislation.
Government and Labor senators are united on what should be done to
strengthen safeguards, including reducing the sunset clause from 10 to
five years.
They are equally united in urging withdrawal of the sedition section
pending review by the Australian Law Reform Commission. They propose
extensive changes to the section if the Government won't do that.
The committee's argument for stopping and thinking on the sedition
provisions is compelling - it was impressed by the many concerns raised.
A delay would not weaken Australia's anti-terrorism capacity "given
the nature of of the existing law in this area", it says. "The
committee is not convinced of an urgent need for the provisions in light
of existing laws such as the offence of treason . . . and the crime of
incitement."
In other words, there is no need to rush. But the Government intends to
proceed immediately with the new sedition law - any amendments to this
section of the bill will only be minor - and then have some form of
inquiry later (as it earlier promised).
This is demonstrably the wrong way round. Why would anyone pass a flawed
measure and then look at it? The only reason would be if failure to pass
immediately left the community exposed. But the committee pulled that
crutch from under the Government.
The Government is insulting its three experienced Coalition senators on
the committee, Marise Payne, Brett Mason and Nigel Scullion. Driven by
stubbornness and politics in refusing to press the pause button on
sedition, it went over the top, got it wrong, and won't fix it when it
logically should. Goodness knows whether it will ever do so. Why would
it?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/wrong-way-go-back-but-on-they-press/2005/11/28/1133026406293.html
=========================================================
6. Forty-second Day of Villawood Hunger Strike: Greens Fear Looming
Tragedy
=========================================================
The Australian GREENS (Victoria)
MEDIA RELEASE
PETER JOB, SPOKESPERSON ON REFUGEES
30 November 2005
The Victorian Greens Spokesperson on Refugees, Peter Job, last night
described a long conversation he had just completed with Villawood hunger
striker Jen Wen Zhang, now into his forty-second day of hunger
strike.
"I introduced him today to Mr. Cam Trung, a Melbourne barrister I
found to represent him with the help of Spare Lawyers for Refugees.
"We discussed his legal options and we both urged him to give up his
hunger strike while we explored these options and tried to take his case
the Australian people. As in previous conversations I reiterated the
medical advice I have been given about the irreversible damage he is now
in danger of doing to his body.
"However, while expressing gratitude for our help, Mr. Zhang
reiterated his determination to continue.
"He told me he considered he was taking a political action for all
detained asylum seekers, not only himself. He said he felt he had no
option but to fight in the only way he could, with his body.
"He reiterated his conviction that he had not received a fair
hearing either from the Department of Immigration, or from the Refugee
Review Tribunal.
"But above all he spoke of his dread of long term detention, telling
of waking continually in the morning with a sense of profound despair and
foreboding due to his incarceration, and telling me he feared the mental
health damage he had seen in so many long term detainees.
"I fear the hunger strike may already have reached a point where Mr.
Zhang will be facing permanent damage to his health and prospects for
long life," Mr. Job said.
"We must remember that again and again long term detainees who have
been rejected by the department and the RRT have eventually been found to
be genuine, many after years in detention. In this context Mr. Zhang's
claims seem highly credible.
"We are now clearly looking at a life and death situation. Does the
minister really value her inept and unjust processes more than she values
a human life?
"The minister should act now to avert a tragedy, and release Mr.
Zhang into the community while his case is being processed."
For interviews or further information contact,
Peter Job mobile: 0423 515 603
email: refu-@vic.greens.org.au
-ENDS-
====================================
7. Feedback from the WA State ALP Conference
====================================
From
http://www.safecom.org.au/terror-wa1.htm
Thanks to everyone who was there on Saturday from 7.30-10.30 - over a
dozen of us at various times, including the Amnesty volunteers. Thanks
Candice, Mark, Gavin and Nicole for all your assistance in pulling it
together. It was great we had such good numbers as we were able to cover
all the entrances and also engage delegates in conversations.
Working together to cover all main entrances into the front registration
desk we were able to hand out information about the Terror Laws
(including the Facts Sheet, Draft letters and Amnesty pamphlet) to every
delegate before they registered and walked into the conference. The
majority of the delegates accepted the information, and many were
supportive of our action.
I think everybody who was there felt the importance and value of what we
did. There was strong interest from many delegates and many I spoke to
were unaware of the detail of the Act and appreciative of us being there.
Security tried to move us on outside a couple of times but with a bit of
assertive sweet talk we simply stayed on without any hassle. Talking with
the people from the Wilderness Society who were also there and a couple
of people from the Gunns/Free the forests Freedom of speech Tour we were
also able to build some links and identify opportunities to work
together.
Amnesty also set up a stall/information table in the forecourt outside
the main convention hall and someone was there all morning. The
"stall" included one of the big banners (Condemn Terror, Not
Human Rights), the Amnesty material including the pamphlets and posters
produced for the campaign and a selection of Amnesty stickers, magazines
and information.
The State ALP Conference endorsed the following motion at the weekend
conference passed as I understand it with minimal dissent. David Ritter
from Labor Lawyers, who moved the motion told me that while resolution is
not as strong as many would have wished, it is the strongest resolution
that was possible in the circumstances. The wording is obviously
also somewhat clunky - a reflection of hurried drafting and negotiations
with the involvement of many hands and minds. The seconder of the motion
was from the CFMEU, and apparently there is cross faction support for
this.
In addition to the resolution, new policy was also passed in relation to
a state bill of rights type instrument and, again, in relation to
terrorism. The relevant sections of the policy are also included.
I think it will be really important for us to talk about what we can
realistically achieve at the state level and what strategy is best. I
will liaise with Giz's office to follow up last Thursday's meeting. We
will write up a brief summary. I will also try to have a chat to Louise
Pratt as well. I guess we need to see what happens with the Federal
Legislation and then be able to move quickly, with a considered and
coordinated strategy at the state level. Could anyone with links with
State MP's perhaps explore their thoughts about the issues to assist in
developing strategy?
Re the Federal ALP. Gavin engaged Chris Evans ALP Senate leader in
conversation for some time on Saturday morning. His view seemed to be
that at a Federal Level, the bill is much better as a result of the ALP’s
efforts.
The ALP are concentrating on the IR legislation as that affects pretty
well everyone while the anti-terror legislation will only affect a
handful of people.
85% of the electorate are shitting themselves about terrorism (and by
implication there aint no votes in opposing the legislation).
Cheers
Colin Penter
Perth WA
29 November 2005
----------------------------
LABOUR CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
----------------------------
Resolution 41R
Moved: D Ritter - Seconded D Kavanagh
This conference recognises:
§ The role of government is to safeguard the safety and security of the
community, while protecting civil and human rights;
§ The need for more widespread community debate about the balance between
the protection of civil liberties and the general protection of the
community; and
§ That aspects of the debate about terrorism have the potential to
marginalize and promote distrust of ethnic and religious communities in
Australia.
And therefore:
§ Calls upon our elected representatives to be restrained and moderate in
their language and to seek to promote a realistic assessment of the
extent of terrorism as a threat to the community’s well-being;
§ Calls upon the Attorney General to commit to an urgent timeline for the
implementation of the WA Policy Platform in relation to the establishment
of human rights legislation;
§ Calls on the State Parliamentary Labor Party to not support
complementary state laws to the Federal Anti-Terror Bill (No 2) 2005
unless:
• the definition of terrorism does not apply to industrial action, civil
dissent or any form of protest;
• judicial review remains a fundamental principle of law that is upheld
in all aspects of the legislation;
• the legislation is reviewed within 4 years.
§ Calls upon the State Government to commit to the application of social
crime prevention strategies to prevent the emergence of domestic
terrorists.
***********Policy Extract***********
STATE PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
§ Labor recognises that, ultimately, the protection of human rights lies
in eternal vigilance.
§ Labor recognizes that Australia is now the only western nation in the
common law world without a bill of rights or some other significant form
of statutory protection guaranteeing the fundamental rights and liberties
of citizens.
§ Labor recognises that the Australian Capital Territory, through the
Human Rights Act 2004, became the first Australian jurisdiction to enact
a bill of rights.
§ Labor believes that Western Australia should enact human rights
legislation which is similar in scope and ambit to the (UK) Human Rights
Act 1998 and the (ACT) Human Rights Act 2004. This legislation will
seek to achieve the following objectives:
a. foster
a civic culture respectful of human rights;
b. ensure
that the impact of any proposed legislation on human rights is a matter
considered by Parliament;
c. require
courts to interpret legislation consistently with human rights wherever
possible;
d. create
a jurisdiction for the Courts to make a declaration as to whether
legislation is compliant with human rights standards, though without
impinging upon the supremacy of Parliament; and
e. foster
a state bureaucracy that is mindful of human rights.
§ Labor acknowledges that acts of terrorism are first and foremost
crimes. Labor is committed to establishing appropriate laws and legal
mechanisms to ameliorate the threat of terrorist crimes, as much as
possible.
§ As with all crimes, in dealing with threats of terrorism, it is
necessary to engage in a balancing act, so that the rights and liberties
that Western Australians hold dear are not lightly forfeited in the name
of combating terror.
From
http://www.safecom.org.au/terror-wa1.htm
============================
8. Youth concern on terror laws: study
============================
news.com.au
From: AAP
By Vera Devai
November 29, 2005
YOUNG Australians worry that new anti-terror laws infringe on basic
rights and may lead to racism, a national study has found.
The Human Rights Commission study surveyed more than 1000 young people at
23 high schools, youth clubs and community centres across the
country.
Focus groups of participants aged 11 to 19 responded to several case
studies, including one "hypothetical" involving Australia's new
anti-terrorism legislation.
Launching the report in Sydney today, Human Rights Commissioner Sev
Ozdowski said the study revealed that young people had difficulty in
reconciling the new legislation with their rights as citizens.
The report concludes: "Overall, respondents seemed to accept that
measures like these new anti-terror laws would be introduced during
extreme times and as a response to direct threats.
"But there was rarely consensus on how to balance the rights of the
individual with the rights of the community."
One of the case studies was that of fictional character Abdullah, the
subject of an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)
investigation.
When Abdullah refused to speak to ASIO officers who came to his home
because he wanted his lawyer present, he was told: "It was a
criminal offence to discuss the investigation with anyone, and that he
could only have access to a lawyer approved by the government if he was
taken into custody.
"They told him that if he did not co-operate they could take him
into custody without charge for seven days, perhaps longer.
"Abdullah didn't want to leave his wife and children alone, so he
agreed to talk to the ASIO officers."
The report, titled Rights of Passage, said many respondents believed the
situation described in the study portrayed an infringement of human
rights.
"Many respondents expressed the opinion that this law was racist, or
that it had the potential to be used to target Muslims or Australians of
Middle Eastern ethnicity," the report said.
"Many respondents who felt the situation was unfair argued that if
there was sufficient evidence to question Abdullah, then he should be
arrested and charged, as with any other type of offence.
"Others mentioned that this law seemed to undermine some basic
principles, such as the right to legal representation, the right to
remain silent, and the right not to be taken into custody unless
charged."
Dr Ozdowski said the study results had generally broken common
stereotypes that youth were self-absorbed and selfish.
"I was encouraged to find that young people were eager to share
their observations on discrimination, equality, tolerance, vilification
and many other topics," he said.
"Overwhelmingly, their views embody some of the best characteristics
of the Australian ethos – fairness, tolerance, egalitarianism, respect
and celebration of difference.
"Their vision of the future gave me much cause for
optimism."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17404118-29277,00.html
===================================
9. Opposed to Anti-terror laws and sedition laws
===================================
29 November 2005
To whom it may concern
I, Willy bach, poet, dissident and humanist, nonviolence community
political activist, author of several web sites, listed here, and
numerous postings and public utterances, register my ongoing defiance of
the Howard government s proposed Anti Terrorism laws, in particular the
Sedition clauses, fully endorse the statements of Gideon Polya, Doug
Everingham, Michael Leunig and Ray Bergman.
I believe that I can claim to have a legitimate grievance against the
secret state of oppression that threatens democracy as a reluctant
veteran of the CIA's Secret War in Laos. The Laos conflict witnessed an
engagement by the USA, its private contractors and its allies in massive
and unprovoked crimes against humanity against a defenceless
low-technology peasant society, callous disregard for civilian
casualties, deception and profiteering. I have called the conflict that
was commenced in 1991, intensified in 2003 and continuing as this is
written The War of Aggression and Plunder Against the People of Iraq. I
will continue to encourage people everywhere to resist this abomination.
As a former soldier, I regard resistance by members of Australia's armed
forced as a higher duty than their obedience to the belligerent Howard
government.
I never use pseudonyms, always give my real name, always use my real
address, never advocate violence, always advocate peace and nonviolence,
always carry out lawful opposition to oppression and aggression. Since
1989 I have stated that the CIA is a thoroughly disreputable
organisation, guilty of thousands of criminal activities, a threat to
world peace, virtually the greatest terrorist organisation in the world
and should be denounced by anyone who wants a truly participatory
democracy.
I maintain that the Howard government are very intentionally setting up a
police state. The ambit claim for draconian legislation by Attorney
General, Phillip Ruddock was the legislation that gives this government
the powers they have wanted to exercise. The Howard government have
already built privately managed high security detention centres for
asylum seekers that it can now opportunistically use for the
disappearance of dissidents and detention without trial. This government
has misappropriated public money in further expansion of the highly
politicised, bloated and largely redundant 'security' organisations AFP
and ASIO. The officers of these organisations will be looking for tasks
that justify their employment to the detriment of the civil and political
rights.
During the course of 2005 I have met Scott Parkin, protested his
deportation and sent letters of support. I helped organise a vigil in
support of Cindy Sheehan and emailed anti war families in the USA
encouraging them to keep up their efforts against the illegal war of
aggression and plunder against the people of Iraq (not forgetting
Afghanistan).
I have supported the case of David Hicks who has suffered barbaric
torture at the hands of US authorities at the Guantanamo Bay Torture
Centre. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the support for torture
expressed by Prime Minister, John Howard, Attorney General, Phillip
Ruddock and Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer and former ASIO Director
General, now Ambassador to USA.
I have further commented on the reckless and improper comments of these
people that could only have been designed to ensure that David Hicks is
submitted to an untested concocted process of a sham military trial that
could lead to a death penalty. It is the opinion of many lawyers that
David Hicks will never be able to receive a fair trial in Australia, as a
result of these comments. If he is actually any threat at all to
Australian society we have been denied the opportunity to imprison David
Hicks in any legitimate process.
I have supported the rights of Muslims to live in peace in Australia and
denounced the racist attacks on them from prominent Liberals. I have
called the deliberate process of provoked disaffection against Muslims
a Kristallnacht in slow motion . I have named John Howard, Peter
Costello, Brendan Nelson, Sophie Panopoulos, Bronwyn Bishop and David
Jull as Liberals who support incitement to hatred of Muslims. I have no
doubt that the mass deportation of Muslims and a return to the 'white
Australia policy' is their ultimate goal. I regard these people as
dangerous extremists whose activities are not consistent with their
positions in public life, or as Members of our Parliament.
I have two web sites and a blog regarding my anti war poetry:
•
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/poetryantiwar
- About the involvement of Britain, Australia and New Zealand in the CIA's secret war in Laos
• http://www.geocities.com/afghanpeacezone - opposing the illegal war against the people of Afghanistan
• http://willybachpoeticthoughts.blogspot.com/ - Mostly poems on war in Africa, resulting from my human rights work in Uganda.
Regards
Willy Bach
Brisbane
=====================================
10. Global warming set to hit Europe badly: agency
=====================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Wednesday, November 30, 2005. 0:00am (AEDT)
Europe is facing the worst climate change in five millennia as a result of global warming, the European Environment Agency (EAA) has warned in a report.
Europe's four hottest years on record were 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, the agency says.
"Ten per cent of Alpine glaciers disappeared during the summer of 2003 alone," the report said.
"At current rates, three-quarters of Switzerland's glaciers will have melted by 2050. Europe has not seen climate changes on this scale for 5,000 years."
The report was issued at the agency's headquarters in Copenhagen, coinciding with the first full day of debate at key United Nations (UN) talks on curbing the greenhouse gases that stoke global warming.
In the 20th century, the average global temperature rose 0.7 degrees Celsius as a result of burning coal, gas and coal - the carbon fuels that are mainly to blame for the rise.
But the rise in Europe was 0.95 degrees Celsius, 35 per cent higher, because of the continent's vulnerable location and smaller land mass, the EAA says.
"Without effective action over several decades, global warming will see ice sheets melting in the north and the spread of deserts from the south. The continent's population could effectively be concentrated in the centre," EAA executive director Jacqueline McGlade said.
The European Union is striving to limit the overall global rise in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius by implementing the UN's Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse-gas pollution and encouraging the use of cleaner resources.
But Mr McGlade warned: "Even if we constrain global warming to the EU target of a two-degree (Celsius) increase, we will be living in atmospheric conditions that human beings have never experienced. Deeper cuts in emissions are needed".
The report, "The European Environment -- State and Outlook 2005," is an assessment of environmental quality in 31 countries that is published every five years.
- AFP
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1519536.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
.
regards
Jack H Smit
Project SafeCom Inc.
http://www.safecom.org.au/
PO Box 364, Narrogin WA 6312
Phone 0417 090 130
"...before landing, please check the sedition manual
and fill out your declaration of dissent..."
Australia becomes Terror Australis:
http://www.safecom.org.au/terror-home.htm
|
|
 |
|
