[IPSM] request from Australia; indigenous solidarity
petokraka78 at aol.com
petokraka78 at aol.com
Tue Nov 15 09:34:31 PST 2005
hey folks,
there's a request from an indigenous women's group in Australia that is looking to build links with indigeneous women's groups here on Turtle Island...
Rihab Charida (rihab_charida at yahoo.com.au) is an organizer with the group. She's a Palestinian activist living in Australia that is concerned with making the links with first people's struggles internationally. If you have any suggestions, you should contact her directly.
i'm attaching below an article from michael mansell that rihab forwarded recently for distribution that describes in more detail the situation facing indigenous folks in australia,
madprops!
kole ;p
===========================================================================
PRESS STATEMENT
MANSELL SEES ANTI-TERROR LAWS BEING USED TO QUELL ABORIGINAL PROTESTS
Aboriginal lawyer and activist Michael Mansell believes Aboriginal
protesters will be targeted by the new anti terror laws as a new way
to discredit Aboriginal leaders.
"This is even clearer after the so-called "counter terrorist" stage-
managed media stunts in Melbourne and Sydney last night. The arrests
were little more than an attempt to justify the rapid passing of anti-
terror laws", he added.
Mr Mansell said "The specific reference to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islanders in section 23CA (4) (a) of the Criminal Code (Anti-
terrorism Act) makes it clear that the indigenous peoples will be
targeted by the new anti-terror laws. Otherwise, why refer to us at
all?
The new federal laws will override existing State and Territory laws,
rules and protocols that evolved from the Deaths in Custody Royal
Commission. These required police to initiate contact either with an
Aboriginal legal service or a friend whenever an Aboriginal person is
taken into custody. Now no-one will be contacted unless the
Aboriginal detainee requests it, absolving police responsibility to
have a representative present to ensure fairness.
In the case of Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders, police must
take that person before a "judicial officer" within two hours- s.23CA
(4)(a).
However the clock does not start running until the person is in a
place where there are "facilities"-s.23CA 8 (a). In the case of the
Torres Strait or a remote Aboriginal community, police can
legitimately harass or use oppressive and overbearing tactics to
extract a confession in however Many hours it takes to get a
detainee to "facilities".
The "judicial officer" can be a JP chosen by the prosecution. Most
lawyers' experience is that JPs are putty in the hands of prosecutors
when it comes to ordinary bail applications. If police oppose bail,
JPs rarely grant bail.
Police can refuse access to a lawyer of the person's choice on the
Ground that lawyer may be a security risk, and police can recommend
their own lawyer. Even when a lawyer is present, police can sit in on
any discussion, and thereby the new law erases the common law right
of legal professional privilege that attaches to information
provided by a client to their lawyer, and advice given on the basis
of it.
The new laws are more about perceptions and innuendo than stopping
violence against the public. The laws are more likely to harm a
detainee's reputation and put the public in fear than stop terrorism.
The expansion of the definitions of Sedition and Terrorist
Organisations go as close as is realistically possible to outlawing
thoughts of dissent.
One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It will be more
difficult for citizens to oppose American (and likewise Australian)
foreign policy under these laws.
An organisation can be listed as "terrorist" for stating publicly
that "the 9/11 bombings in the US was a case of Americans getting a
taste of their own medicine". Such expression is outlawed by s.102.1
(2), even although neither the person whom spoke the words nor their
organisation has lifted a finger to assist anyone. Dissenting
opinions about the World Trade Centre event may be distasteful to
some; but the right to express a different view has never been so
challenged.
Aborigines travelling overseas to conferences with indigenous peoples
elsewhere may now be prohibited from even talking to other
delegates. If the Australian government lists an overseas group
as "terrorist", and the Aboriginal delegate is aware of the listing,
talking twice to representatives of the listed group can bring 7
years gaol -s.80.2 (7).
This could apply to the Kanaks from New Caledonia who are fighting
for independence from France, or the Mohawks from Canada who fought
against the Canadian government and army to preserve their
traditional lands from being made a golf course.
While sedition charges allow for criticism of policy in good faith,
the Onus is on a defendant to prove it- s.80.3 (1) (e) end note. The
Aboriginal Tent Embassy and the Aboriginal Provisional Government,
both of which publicly challenge the legitimacy claims to
sovereignty by the Australian Government, could find themselves
charged under the sedition laws.
An Aboriginal leader accused under these laws could so easily be
discredited as a consequence, even where their actions have
legitimately been to promote the rights of their people. People's
lives can be destroyed in more ways than with a gun.
The Howard/Ruddock/Beazley troika has become the thought police, and
Police are now expected to act against political views rather than
criminal activity. In one fell swoop, the troika has changed the face
of law enforcement in Australia forever.
These laws go well beyond any required to prevent organised violence
in Australia. The new laws attack freedom of expression by
intimidation and suggestion. The policy underlining the new legal
regime is to kill dissent. There is even a section that provides,
George Orwell-like, for re-programming -s. 104.4 (3)(l)."
Michael Mansell
Secretary
8th November 2005 0429 310 116
---------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed anti-terrorism laws
Dale Mills
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) met on September 27,
2005 to agree draft anti- terrorism legislation. What was to be the
law of Australia was provided in confidence to the State Premiers
who, in turn, agreed to keep its contents secret. Then, just before
Federal Parliament adjourned, the government said that the Legal and
Constitutional Legislation Committee would have one day to review the
legislation or to conduct public hearings. This was too much for ACT
Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, who then put the draft legislation up on
his website.
The secrecy surrounding the proposed legislation is in stark contrast
to other legislation, whether surrounding national security or
otherwise. Previous ASIO and anti-terrorism legislation has been
subject to much closer scrutiny by Parliamentary Committees and
public hearings to take evidence have been held.
The draft legislation that was agreed by the Federal Government and
Sate Premiers, the Anti- terrorism Bill (2005), consists of over 100
pages.
New sedition laws
Many countries have some sort of sedition law. In industrialised
countries, laws of sedition are balanced with a Human Rights Act or
some such equivalent. Lacking this legal counter-balance makes any
sedition laws in Australia extremely harsh and prone to abuse.
Sedition is an ancient law dating back to at least Elizabeth I. It
was put into statute form in Australia by the federal Crimes Act
1914, and the offence of sedition still exists in the Act, along with
sections on treachery, sabotage and mutiny.
The old law of sedition had been left to gather dust but it has now
been brushed off by the Howard Government and made harsher.
The proposed law in relation to sedition is one defined, in part, as:
? bringing the Sovereign [Queen Elizabeth] into hatred or contempt
? urging another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means,
to procure a change to any matter established by law in Australia
? to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different
groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the
country.
The maximum penalty for sedition is being increased from the present
maximum of three years imprisonment to seven years imprisonment.
There are further offences which are similarly wide, and where abuse
can be easily imagined.
These offences include where any person urges another:
? to overthrow, by force or violence, the Australian Government or
government of any State or Territory (maximum penalty 7 years)
? to interfere by force or violence with parliamentary elections (7
years)
? to engage in conduct that intends to assist, by any means
whatever, an organisation or country that is at war with Australia ?
whether formally declared or not (7 years)
? to engage in conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an
organisation or country engaged in armed hostilities against the
Australian Defence Force (7 years).
Remember, these offences are not for carrying out acts, but just
for "urging" another person to do so.
One offence, which is very widely defined, is to urge a (racial,
religious, national or political) group to use force or violence
against another (racial, religious, national or political) group,
such as to threaten the peace, order and good government of Australia
(7 years).
This replaces and changes the current 1914 Crimes Act, with its
antiquated wording, where it is an offence "to promote feelings of
ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's
subjects?"
A common element with many of these offences is that it is not
necessary to show that a person "intended" to urge others, but only
that they were "reckless" in urging others ? a much easier way to
convict someone.
There is also a "good faith" defence to many of these offences, but
there isn't much detail as to how "good faith" will work out in
practice. Good faith does, however, include pointing out "any matters
that are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of ill-
will or hostility between different groups, in order to bring about
the removal of those matters" ? a narrow defence.
Another "good faith" defence includes doing "anything in good faith
in connection with an industrial dispute or an industrial matter".
This suggests that industrial disputes or industrial matters may be
labelled seditious, where there is an absence of "good faith".
Proceedings may only be commenced in relation to sedition with the
Attorney-General's written consent. (At present that is Phillip
Ruddock, the Minister who oversaw the illegal detention and abuse of
asylum seekers and innocent Australian citizens in subhuman
conditions.) With the offences so broadly worded, anyone charged is
virtually guaranteed a conviction. The requirement of the Attorney-
General's written consent, therefore, essentially shifts power from
the courts to executive government, so that it is effectively the
government that can pick off individuals its doesn't like. It only
needs to bring a prosecution (on the advice of ASIO?) and conviction
almost automatically results.
In practice
The sedition laws could apply to anyone: anti-war protestors, trade
unionists, communists, progressive religious groups, religious
fundamentalists, shock jocks, journalists, republicans bringing the
Sovereign into contempt. If used against everyone, it is a charter
for crushing dissent. If used to target Muslims only, it is a weapon
to criminalise and terrify a specific ethnic and religious group.
Australian Muslims will be added to Indigenous Australians as a group
targeted for special treatment by the Australian Government.
It would be wrong to think that the government is alienating the
Muslim community simply because the government is stupid or
incompetent or out of touch. It knows exactly what it is doing. The
reason it is doing this, of course, is that it is helpful to the
government to have a Muslim population living in fear, increasingly
isolated, and regarded by suspicion by non-Muslim Australians.
The demonisation of a section of the Australian population is an easy
solution where it makes the war on Iraq and increasing assistance to
the US war on terror electorally easier. If you don't think the
government is that cynical or ruthless, just think children
overboard, compulsory immigration detention, David Hicks or SIEV-X.
Control Orders
Control orders can be made against any individual. You don't have to
be a suspect, but just a person whose control will
probably "substantially assist in preventing a terrorist act". If
there were enough evidence to bring a charge, then Control Orders
would not be relevant (you would simply be arrested and remanded in
prison till trial).
The person that a Control Order is made against will not have any
idea that the application is being made. It won't be possible to
brief a lawyer to oppose the making of the order.
The Control Order may last for 12 months (3 months for 16-18 year-
olds). It can order specific measures in order to "control" you.
According to schedule 4 of the Act, these include:
? that you remain at specified premises between specified times each
day, or on specified days (eg, house arrest)
? a requirement that you wear a tracking device (the high tech
equivalent of a tattooed number on your arm or shackles)
? that you are banned from communicating or associating with
specified individuals (including specified lawyers or journalists, or
all known friends and relatives)
? banned from using specified forms of telecommunication or other
technology (eg, banned from using the phone, or the internet)
? a requirement that you report to specified persons at specified
times and places.
After the first 12 months, another 12 months Order can be issued, and
so on, so that detaining a person for years without charge or trial
would be perfectly legal. Breaching the Control Order carries a five
years penalty.
The public will never know how many people are under house arrest
except by the annual report to Parliament, where only the number of
people will be given.
Preventative Detention Orders
Preventative Detention Orders are also designed for those against
whom there is no evidence or not enough evidence to bring a charge.
It allows for a person to be picked off the streets and detained for
14 days where authorities suspect that it will prevent a terrorist
act within the next 14 days or to preserve evidence.
If interned under a Preventative Detention Order, you can only ring
your family or employer to say that you are safe. Telling them that
you have been detained by the Australian Federal Police or telling
them anything else would be a criminal offence.
The existence of Preventative Detention Orders is probably very close
to what most people have in mind when they think of a "police state".
The initial order (for 24 hours) is not made by a judge but by a
police officer (Police Superintendent or above). After that, the
police obtain another order from a Judge acting in a personal
capacity. Some Judges may be more willing to grant these than others ?
the police will soon find out. As the Judge is acting in a personal
capacity, there is no right of appeal. This is so close to bringing
the judge to act in a way incompatible with his or her status that
the legislation might be ruled invalid if it got to the High Court.
By then, of course, it would be too late.
In any event, it is not constitutionally clear whether the federal
government has the power to allow for the making of Preventative
Detention Orders for more than 48 hours. That is why the State Labor
leaders have come to Howard's rescue, agreeing to change State laws
to allow for 14 days detention.
Shoot to kill
Sections in the proposed legislation allow a police officer to shoot
to kill in some circumstances. Although rightly greeted with surprise
by some corporate media commentators, the sections substantially
spell out what is already the law.
The proposed section 105.23 says that an Australian Federal Police
officer may use force to prevent a person fleeing if that person has
a Preventative Detention Order made out against them and if the
person has refused to give himself or herself up and the police
officer believes on reasonable grounds that using force is necessary
to protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person. The
force that can be used includes deadly force.
In reality, every police officer might suspect that every person
against whom a Preventative Detention Order has been made is a danger
to others. Once the order has been made, therefore, the police
officer effectively holds in his hand legal authority to detain a
person or, if the person runs away, a licence to kill. So under this
section, a situation such as occurred to De Menezes when he was shot
dead at point blank range while sitting and reading a newspaper on
the London underground in July is entirely possible on a train or
tram in Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide. Providing, of course, that the
police officer believes on reasonable grounds that it was necessary.
The war on Iraq has seen tens or hundreds of thousands of people
attacked at the hands of US, UK and Australian forces. Without making
light of the suffering of the Iraqi people, Muslims in Australia are
a target of that war as well, although obviously not in the same
harrowing way. Another target, the one that the proposed laws are
designed to attack, are Australian civil liberties, anti-war
protestors and dissenters, including communists and trade unionists,
who have taken their stand against war and racism.
Note: as we go to press, an altered version of the proposed Terrorism
Act 2005 is in circulation among the Premiers, but this is being
withheld from the Australian public till it is introduced in the
Parliament.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/ipsm-l/attachments/20051115/e259fbc6/attachment.html>
More information about the IPSM-l
mailing list