|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 22 February 2006
|
Project SafeCom
|
Feb 21, 2006 18:03 PST
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 22 February 2006
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. An ignorant Australian?
2. Democrats welcome release of Naqib Noori
3. MONITORING THE NET: In Google We Trust?
4. Immigration dept 'was under strain'
5. Bill of rights debate reignited
6. Multiculturalism needs better promotion: Democrats
7. How a lack of charisma helped the PM to seduce us
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| This is the Project SafeCom Newsletter - published since 2001
-|| as the 'Project SafeCom Daily News and Updates'.
-||
-|| To subscribe to this Newsletter or to manage your subscription, visit
-|| http://www.safecom.org.au/newsletter-subscribe.htm
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
===================
1. An ignorant Australian?
===================
Online Opinion
By Irfan Yusuf
Wednesday, 22 February 2006
Its advertisements pose the question: “Are you an informed Australian?” But
if you believe what has been written in The Australian on February 20, 2006
about Muslim migrants, you will probably end up a bigoted, or at best
ignorant, Australian.
The Australian newspaper has painted a picture of a Muslim culture hostile
to mainstream Australia, with extreme attitudes toward women, powered by a
sense of “jihad” and unable to adapt to the Australian mainstream.
In the past, The Australian has published numerous opinion pieces
supporting or suggesting such a view. The authors have pointed to the
alleged inability of Muslim migrants to adapt to Australian conditions.
Alternatively, they have used Muslims as a scapegoat in an attempt to
impose their own cultural monolith on Australia’s multicultural status quo.
When parliamentarians have made (and then withdrawn) infantile allegations
against Muslim migrants (such as the recent embarrassment with Danna Vale’s
contribution to the RU486 debate), The Australian has supported them,
"gracing" its op-ed pages with an article by Muslim-hater Mark Steyn.
Last Monday The Australian published excerpts from an interview with the
Prime Minister. They were originally meant to be published on or about
March 11, 2006 to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the Howard
Government, but for some reason the paper brought this date forward.
Mr Howard has made some recent remarks on what he views as unfortunate
traits limited to a small minority from within Muslim communities. Some of
Mr Howard’s remarks are correct, while others are perhaps reflective of
popularly-held misconceptions.
I don't intend to focus on what Mr Howard said, but rather on the editorial
baggage which The Australian has tried to attach to Mr Howard’s comments.
Mr Howard’s words were about a minority, but The Australian generalises
these traits into characteristics of what it describes as “Muslim culture”.
In an article entitled “Howard hits out at ‘jihad’ Muslims”, George
Megalogenis has the PM “strongly criticis[ing] aspects of Muslim culture,
warning they pose an unprecedented challenge for Australia's immigration
program”.
The paper went on to report that “[t]he Prime Minister also expressed
concern about Muslim attitudes to women”.
So we have “Muslim culture” and “Muslim attitudes”. The suggestion is that
there exists an homogenous Muslim culture, that it is a migrant culture,
and that it has implications for Australia’s immigration program.
And what evidence has been presented of an homogenous Muslim culture? Who
knows? Perhaps more importantly, who cares?
The Australian’s editorial of February 20, 2006 provides some background
behind the interview with the PM, which was held “to discuss
multiculturalism, immigration and the integration into our society of new
arrivals”. In this context, Mr Howard “was asked if he was confident that
Muslims would integrate as thoroughly as the wave of Asian immigrants of
the 1980s and 90s had done”.
The very fact such a question could be asked shows the exceptional
ignorance of the editorial’s author. It suggests that Muslim migration is a
recent phenomenon, and Muslim migrants all have the same culture. Muslims
are painted as a recently-arrived monolithic migrant group.
The reality is that Muslims have been migrating to Australia for over a
century. Apart from the descendants of Afghan and northwest Indian
cameleers and hawkers, there were a large number of post-war Muslim
migrants from Albania and the former Yugoslavia.
Hardly four decades after the Gallipoli campaign, Australia relaxed its
White Australia Policy to enable migration of Turks from Cyprus and
Anatolia. Today, Turkish Australians are some of the best settled migrants
in the country. Turks manage more mosques than any other ethnic Muslim group.
If they seriously believe that Muslims make up a monolithic cultural group
of migrants arriving after the wave of Indo-Chinese migrants of the 1980’s,
one wonders which Australia the editors of The Australian have been living
in all these years.
The editors claim “[i]n recent years we have had no one, other than some
Muslims, bringing such missionary zeal to the establishment of their own
religion and society within our own”.
Exactly what the problem is with establishing one’s culture and
institutions isn’t explained. Islam, like Christianity, is a missionary
faith. Displaying missionary zeal is not in itself illegal. Neither is
establishing mosques or schools. Indeed, the Howard Government has been
committed to the public funding of independent schools.
Muslim missionary work has been performed in Australia since the arrival of
the first Muslim settlers in the 19th century. The vast majority of Muslim
missionary work has been peaceful, usually in the form of speeches by imams
and visiting scholars.
The Australian editorial laments “… the attitude of some of our latest
arrivals who see the relaxed and tolerant lifestyle of their neighbours as
some sort of affront to their passionately held beliefs”.
The most recently arrived waves of Muslim migrants (apart from skilled
tradespeople, professionals or business migrants) have been asylum seekers
from Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. Apart from one
Bosnian charged following the recent anti-terror raids, there is no
evidence of such attitudes being held by any of these categories of asylum
seekers. Nor is there evidence to suggest that Afghans or Bosnians or
Somalis or other similar groups live and work in ghettoes or enclaves.
The Australian continues:
Since the end of World War II, Australia has prided itself on the ability
of everyone to fit in. The waves of Greek and Italian migrants have been
absorbed in two generations. They are now no easier to pinpoint than the
Scots or Irish immigrants of a century before.
Exactly the same can be said for Albanian and Bosnian Muslim migrants from
the post-war era. It can also be said for many Turkish migrants, whose
dress and appearance makes them indistinguishable from other European
Australians. One wonders whether The Australian’s editors have ever visited
Smithfield or Penshurst in Sydney and attempted to identify a Bosnian
Muslim who isn’t sporting a prayer cap.
The Australian goes on to state “Asian immigrants of the last part of the
20th century are now doing likewise. None of these peoples harboured any
hope or desire to imprint their culture over that which existed here.”
So how does one define the “imprint” of a culture? Have Vietnamese or
Chinese migrants suddenly started eating only meat pies? Is Sydney’s China
Town being dismantled? Did we see the last of the Chinese New Years
celebrations in late January?
The Australian editorial shows how completely divorced it is from reality
in the following lengthy paragraph:
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for some of our newest Muslim
immigrants. They have arrived with attitude. They have a mindset that
disapproves of our relaxed and socially unstructured lifestyle. Their young
men, raised in the strictures of Muslim households, do not understand, and
have no wish to accept, the freedoms young Australian women take for
granted. It was this clash of cultures that fuelled the Cronulla riots and
which is at the heart of Mr Howard's warning.
Again, none of the most recent Muslim arrivals had any involvement in the
Cronulla riots. The riots were said to be in retaliation for the assault on
surf life savers by certain people of “Middle Eastern” appearance. I am yet
to meet someone from Bosnia or the Horn of Africa of Middle Eastern
appearance. Further, there is no suggestion of involvement by Afghans.
Rather, if there are young Middle Eastern men showing bad attitudes to
women and the law, they are from second and third generations of more
settled migrant groups - Lebanese and Pakistanis. The boys convicted of
gang-rapes were not Afghan or Somali or Bosnian. They were boys from
Lebanese and Pakistani families.
In adding editorial baggage to the PM’s recent pronouncements, the
editorial writers of The Australian are seeking to paint a coherent picture
of a monolithic culture of recently arrived Muslim migrants. But examined
against the reality of wave after wave of Muslim migration, the picture
painted looks little more than incoherent pieces of paint hurled onto the
canvas.
First published in Mediah Mullah on February 20, 2006.
Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer. He has three blogs, Madhab al-Irfy, The
Aussie Mossie and Planet Irf.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4187
=================================
2. Democrats welcome release of Naqib Noori
=================================
.... BUT RENEW CALLS FOR CHANGE TO LAWS
Australian Democrats' Immigration spokesperson, Senator Andrew Bartlett has
welcomed news that Afghani refugee Mr Naqib Noori has finally been given a
visa after six and a half years in detention, but warned that the flaws in
our law and system which led to his wrongful incarceration still exist.
"This man was locked up for over 6 years as a direct result of being denied
the opportunity to respond to anonymous, incorrect allegations about
him. The same injustice could occur to others, including Australians,
under the existing law."
"Mr Noori is a former diplomat whose family arrived with him in
1999. While his wife and children were given visas at the time and have
long ago become Australian citizens, this man has had to endure being
locked away while his three children grow up, due to mistaken identity and
false allegations."
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=4999&display=1
===================================
3. MONITORING THE NET: In Google We Trust?
===================================
New Matilda Magazine
By: Sophie Cunningham
Wednesday 15 February 2006
There are few more powerful examples of Google's awesome reach and
influence than comparing search results for the word 'Tiananmen' on
google.cn (Google China) and google.com. The former leads you to a series
of images worthy of a tourism brochure: the beauty of the square's building
at night, excited visitors with their arms open wide as if to embrace the
remarkable historical vista that lies before them. The latter leads you to
im-ages of tanks, more tanks and surging protesters.
Google's motto is 'Don't be Evil' and their mission is vast: 'to organise
the world's informa-tion and make it accessible.' It was started eight
years ago by a couple of computer nerds, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and is
now the fastest growing company in the world.
On Australia Day, around the time that John Howard was making his own
declaration about the way information should be filtered into Australian
classrooms, Google had a market capitalisation of $138 billion, although
its share prices have since dropped after disappointing results for its
first quarter.
The London Review of Books recently ran an essay (since extracted by The
Age) review-ing two books about Google: The Google Story by David Vise and
The Search by John Battelle. The essay's author, John Lanchester, outlines
the significant moments in this modern business fairytale — the fact that
the company started with a spelling error (it was meant to be called
googol); the extraordinarily simple mechanics of its operation; and the
breathless speed with which it has transformed itself into a multi-billion
dollar company.
Lanchester summarises: 'on the one hand, Google is cool. On the other hand,
Google has the potential to destroy the publishing industry, the newspaper
business, high street retail-ing and our privacy.'
Lanchester's article came out the day after, but was presumably written
before, Google's 25 January announcement that they were prepared to allow
the Chinese Government to filter the results of Google China. Apparently
the decision caused much internal angst, but we got some insight into the
arguments put forward by supporters of the decision when Google's Senior
Policy Analyst, Andrew McLaughlin, made a statement to the US Con-gress in
which he said that, 'the launch of google.cn did not in any way alter the
availability of the uncensored Chinese-language version of google.com,
which Google provides glob-ally to all internet users without restriction.'
Which begs the question: what might the Chinese Government choose to do to
people who persist in using google.com rather than google.cn?
Certainly Students for a Free Tibet remain unconvinced and have redesigned
the colorful and friendly Google logo so that it's sitting on a prison wall
with the Chinese flag aloft, and have offered tips on hacking into Google's
homepage and replacing their logo with the jammed (reworked) one. And a
website, NoLuv4Google.org, has been set up, inviting Google users to break
up with Google on Valentine's Day and get themselves another search engine
— the kind of search engine you can trust.
And believe me, a lot of trust is going to be needed. To quote Lanchester
again:
Google logs all searches made on it and stores this information
indefinitely... Be-cause every computer has a unique IP address, every
visit to every website can be traced back to the computer making it.
Google are getting a lot of flack, but they aren't the first media group to
exchange their much vaunted principles for a shot at one of the largest
markets in the world. Rupert Mur-doch's Newscorp has been in China for
years. Yahoo! Microsoft and Cisco are in there too. Indeed Yahoo! has
received far less media attention for far worse behavior: it has provided
Chinese authorities with personally identifying data on a journalist, Li
Zhi, who believed he was using an anonymous Yahoo! account. Zhi is the
second cyber-dissident said to be jailed with Yahoo!'s assistance. The
first, Shi Toa, was jailed last April for 10 years.
So, can we trust the Google guys? They're young. They wear sneakers. They
are inde-pendent thinkers. They let their employees work flexible hours and
ride skateboards down the corridor. The company has shown an (economically
beneficial) respect for the value of other people's labour and the
importance of a productive work environment.
But they also control one of the world's largest databases. One of their
projects is a part-nership with NASA. We can use Google Earth to check out
images from satellite photo-graphs and have a look at the street, and
possibly the house, we live in. They are working on 'Googling your Genes' —
which will allow us to search the genetic makeup of our own bodies.
No surprise then that Becky Hogge of OpenDemocracy.net asks what deal
Google did with the Chinese Government to get the one concession they
achieved: that google.cn tells its customers when their search results have
been filtered. As Hogge goes on to ask:
What happens when a ubiquitous search engine that stores data from millions
of user searches a day opens a service inside a totalitarian regime with a
thirst to know what every one of its citizens is doing at all times? … how
much data are you logging about your new Chinese customers, Google? And
what will you do when the Chinese authorities ask you to hand it over?
The answer to that question is, in part, being played out in the United
States right now, in a case that has been triggered by the Government's
attempts to track people's use of illegal pornography. A hearing on US
Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales's consequent endeavor to compel Google to
turn over search records to the US Department of Justice will take place on
14 March. Microsoft, Yahoo! and America Online have also been asked to turn
over logs showing search terms used by people, and a list of websites
indexed by the companies' search engines. The latter companies all complied
with the subpoena to some degree, while Google has refused.
So yes, for the moment we can trust Google. But it is hard to feel
confident that they will maintain their credibility in the long term,
especially if their stocks continue to drop.
And whatever Google decide to do, it is becoming increasingly easy to
imagine an Austra-lia, not so far in the future, where we too have a
government that has won the right to trace what searches we do online, and
has the right to restrict what information we can access.
Go on, imagine it's the year 2010. Type in 'Cronulla Riots, 2005.' Behold
the pictures of vibrant White Australian boys, tanned from a day at the
beach, beaming at the camera, resplendent in their flags.
About the Author
Sophie Cunningham worked in publishing for 15 years as an editor of fiction
and non-fiction and as a publisher.
She is now a freelance journalist and author and has a regular column in
The Age, called 'Blog World.' Her first novel, Geography, was published in
2004 and she is currently working on her second, Dharma is a Girl's Best
Friend.
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=1353
===========================
4. Immigration dept 'was under strain'
===========================
The Age
February 21, 2006 - 7:14PM
An immigration officer says the department was overwhelmed by an influx of
asylum seekers when it processed an Iranian boy who now claims two years in
detention left him with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Shayan Badraie, now aged 10, is suing the federal government over the two
years he spent in detention at Woomera in South Australia and Villawood in
Sydney after arriving by boat from Iran in March 2000.
His legal team argues he developed post-traumatic stress while in
detention, where he was exposed to violence, riots and acts of self-harm.
In the NSW Supreme Court, the federal government began its response to the
case by calling the former head of the immigration department's border
control and detention division, Philippa Godwin.
Ms Godwin, who was later elevated to the role of deputy secretary within
the department, said there had been an unprecedented surge in illegal boat
arrivals in 1999.
"From the middle of 1999 the task was obviously just getting larger and
larger," Ms Godwin said.
"The numbers were clearly at the point of potentially overwhelming the
available accommodation."
The department built the Woomera detention facility to help with the
numbers, but even then things were strained, she said.
The influx also left human resources stretched, with too few officers
available to interview, investigate and assess asylum applicants, the court
was told.
The Badraies, who were granted Temporary Protection Visas in 2002, arrived
in Australia without any identification papers, further slowing up the
processing of their case.
"It meant we had to get additional lengths to try to confirm and
corroborate people's statements that they made," Ms Godwin said.
If the Badraie case succeeds, it will open the door for other former
immigration detainees to sue the government for damages.
The case before Justice Peter Johnson continues.
© 2006 AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Immigration-dept-was-under-strain/2006/02/21/1140284063501.html
======================
5. Bill of rights debate reignited
======================
news.com.au
From: AAP
February 21, 2006
BASIC human rights need to be protected in a new era of waning
parliamentary power, a politicised public service, and the increasing
dominance of governing parties, a High Court judge said today.
In a London memorial lecture to honour eminent British judge Lord Leslie
Scarman, one of Australia's most revered legal minds says it is time human
rights are legally protected.
Ministerial responsibility has been eroded almost to vanishing point,
public servants are less inclined to challenge Ministers, and the
traditional power of Parliament is diminishing, Michael Kirby said.
"Effectively, Australia is now the only modern Western country that must
face the challenges of the present age and the changes in the institutions
of Government without a constitutional, or even statutory, charter of
rights to temper political autarchy with occasional judicial reminders of
fundamental freedoms that must be respected," he said in the lecture to the
Law Commission of England and Wales in London.
Justice Kirby said that as a younger man he opposed a bill of rights,
preferring to leave the responsibility for protecting rights with
parliament and the electorate.
But major shifts in political power had changed his mind, he said.
"The changes that have come over our institutions in the past 30 years,
under successive governments of every political complexion, make the mantra
of democratic law-making increasingly unconvincing," he said.
"Do our elected Parliaments operate so effectively that we have no need for
judicial protection of the basic rights of the people – putting such rights
beyond political assault or erosion?"
Justice Kirby described the debate in Australia over the need for a bill of
rights as "desultory".
Neither of the two major political parties had much interest in championing
legally-protected human rights, he said.
He praised the work of Lord Scarman, who helped establish the UK Human
Rights Act, which became law in 1998.
Justice Kirby was appointed to the High Court in 1996.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18226913-29277,00.html
=======================================
6. Multiculturalism needs better promotion: Democrats
=======================================
ABC ONLINE NEWS
Tuesday, February 21, 2006. 4:42pm (AEDT)
The Australian Democrats say politicians need to promote the benefits of
multiculturalism to reduce community fears about Muslim extremists.
Senator Andrew Bartlett is a speaker today at a multicultural symposium in
Brisbane.
He says it aims to look at the factors that caused the Cronulla riots in
Sydney and the future of multiculturalism in Australia.
"We need to learn, continually learn from situations, whether it's what
happened in Cronulla or indeed learning why the overseas reactions to the
cartoons in Denmark were stronger than what they were here, and the success
Australia has had in rejecting extremism," he said.
"There's always a risk of adding to community fears about extremism or
about particular groups and Muslims are obviously the group where people
have the fears at the moment.
"I think we need to recognise that some of those fears are based on an
understandable reaction, but also recognise we have had muslims in
Australia for over 100 years."
Meanwhile, an Islamic leader says Australia's politicians are not doing
enough to embrace multiculturalism.
Keysar Trad, from the Islamic Friendship Association, says the Federal
Government needs to be more pro-active about multiculturalism.
"What we need is for these leaders to get more serious about our position
in the world community," he said.
"Australia stands in a very, very leading position to show the world
community the benefits of multiculturalism.
"We are becoming more and more a global world."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1575136.htm
========================================
7. How a lack of charisma helped the PM to seduce us
========================================
He's no visionary, but the man in the top job remains as persuasive as
ever, writes Hugh Mackay.
Sydney Morning Herald
February 21, 2006
AS HE celebrates his 10th anniversary in charge, John Howard's grip on the
prime ministership is firmer than ever. No challenger on either side of
politics comes close to Howard in terms of the respect he enjoys in the
Australian electorate.
Respect? For the man who misled us over the children overboard affair; the
man who created the infamous distinction between core and non-core
promises; and the man who used $4 million of taxpayers' money to pay
outstanding entitlements to the employees of a failed company of which his
brother happened to be chairman?
Respect? For the man who created an admirable set of standards of
ministerial propriety and then revised them downwards rather than sack a
mate; the man who sent Australian troops to invade Iraq based on false
information about Saddam's non-existent weapons of mass destruction; the
man who never seems to know anything about the kind of scandals (like the
corrupt wheat deals) that would once have had any responsible minister
hanging his head in shame?
Yes, respect. The grounds for it have changed in the past decade. Howard's
reputation with Australian voters still rests more on respect than any
other single factor. We may not like him, and we may find it hard to know
when he is telling the truth - yet we respect him.
Even the many disillusioned voters who no longer trust Howard speak of
their respect for the man's dogged persistence, his economic credentials,
his political cleverness and his powerful instinct for survival.
Howard is perceived as the ultimate pragmatist, the arch politician, the
"safe pair of hands" and the man to weather a crisis. And in spite of all
our disappointment and disillusionment - and our disgust and despair - we
continue to respect him for those qualities.
When he came to office, Howard made two remarks that have turned out to be
prophetic. He declared that "the times suit him" and he spoke of his wish
for Australians to be "relaxed and comfortable" under his prime
ministership. Against the odds - odds that range from a dizzying rate of
change to the threat of international terrorism - many Australians have,
indeed, found a way to be relaxed and comfortable.
The key to Howard's appeal lies in his very lack of charisma. His
appearance of ordinariness is perhaps his greatest political asset. Even
his harshest critics, people who believe he's actually lied to them, remark
that he does it so convincingly and appears so sincere, it's hard not to be
seduced.
Howard acts like one of us. His personal standards are no higher than ours.
Although we might yearn for visionary and charismatic leaders, there's
something peculiarly reassuring about a bloke in whom we recognise our own
frailties, weaknesses and contradictions.
Some leaders inspire us with the noble idea that we might create a better
society. Howard sets our sights on a lower, lesser target. Far from
inspiring nobility of purpose, he encourages us to be comfortable with the
baser aspects of our own ordinariness.
For instance, he reinforces our materialism. By conflating politics with
economics and by placing heavy emphasis on material prosperity, Howard has
encouraged the idea - already flourishing in our secular, capitalist
society - that money is the key to happiness, that share-ownership is a
symbol of success and that the rich should be praised and rewarded for
being rich.
That, in turn, reinforces our moral laxity, partly because that's the usual
result of an over-emphasis on material values. Howard's unwavering
commitment to the strategy of "toughing it out" also encourages, by
example, our thoroughly human tendency to be self-serving and, when it
suits our purposes, downright dishonest.
He reinforces our prejudices. From the moment he appeared to align himself
with Pauline Hanson's sympathisers, Howard has been the master of "dog
whistle" politics - giving people permission to indulge their prejudices
without ever quite saying so. Under Howard, we have become less
compassionate, less tolerant and more uninhibited in the expression of
ethnic and religious prejudice. "Terrorist" has become a convenient new
cloak for some very old prejudices.
Howard hasn't done any of this single-handedly, of course. We have been his
partners in this entire enterprise. It is his ability to reinforce what is
already there - dark as it may be - that is the true genius of Howard's
prime ministership.
http://smh.com.au/news/national/how-a-lack-of-charisma-helped-the-pm-to-seduce-us/2006/02/20/1140284005900.html
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| This is the Project SafeCom Newsletter - published since 2001
-|| as the 'Project SafeCom Daily News and Updates'.
-||
-|| To subscribe to this Newsletter or to manage your subscription, visit
-|| http://www.safecom.org.au/newsletter-subscribe.htm
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-||- Project SafeCom info
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Old (and hopefully current) online archives of our News & Updates:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/safecom/read
Current (and new) archives of our News and Updates:
http://lists.perthimc.asn.au/pipermail/safecom-announce/
To subscribe to this Newsletter or to manage your subscription, visit
http://www.safecom.org.au/newsletter-subscribe.htm
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:
+-+-+-+
HOME OF TERROR? - the hub page for our NEW Australian Anti-terrorism
legislation and our "seditious" section:
http://www.safecom.org.au/terror-home.htm
ROYAL COMMISSION Petition: download it, print it, put it out - everywhere
around town: http://www.safecom.org.au/royal-commission.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
|
|
 |
|
