[IPSM] request from Australia; indigenous solidarity

[Jaggi Singh]

thanks for this kole. ISM-Montreal (International Solidarity Movement with 
Palestine) has committed to developing our analysis around indigenous 
sovereignty issues, and to act on that analysis in tangible ways. we want 
to be coherent and consistent in challenging occupation, and can't 
consider ourselves credible if we condemn occupation in one place 
(palestine) while not, at the same time, working on opposing the 
occupation that occurs "at home". this is a very useful contact to have.

best,
jaggi.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 petokraka78 at aol.com wrote:

> 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.
>