The Voice of Australia

The story reproduced below, taken from the website of Melbourne's Herald Sun, which is apparently the largest selling newspaper in Australia, illustrates the point made in the previous post that the gloves are really off these days, as reactionary elites from different countries co-operate with one another in an effort to suppress opposition. This particular incident, involving the inexplicable arrest, detainment (five days in solitary confinement!) and deportation of 36yo American peace activist Scott Parkin - or, more to the point, anti-Halliburton activist -  shows how the so-called war on terror has furnished the pretext for the suppression of individuals who have  done nothing wrong whatsoever. In fact, according to Australia's Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, Parkin has been deported not because of anything he has done, but because he has received 'an adverse security assessment,' something that resulted in the instant cancellation of his visa. (SOURCE)

This is simply disgraceful.  What rights do people have today when they can't even discuss their country's foreign policies in a different country?  If an American citizen can be deported from Australia for giving political talks, then the same thing could happen to any political activist anywhere. So it looks to me like Parkin's deportation is simply a case of the politically-motivated harrassment of an international political activist. They don't yet dare go after someone with the profile of a Scott Ritter or a Naomi Klein, but in time they assuredly will.

Let's just think about the precedent that Parkin's arrest, detainment and deportation sets. Can it be long before foreign visitors will be obliged to declare upon entering Australia that while in the country they will desist from all political activity? Ultimately, the intention may be to intimidate those who tour the world lecturing audiences informed on the injustices and atrocities committed against the Palestinians. Alternatively, the ultimate intent could be to silence critics of international corporations. It would not hard to forsee a time when, say, the Australian government deports a speaker at the request of an Exxon Mobil, a Monsanto or a Coca Cola. Those who wish to engage in political activity will no doubt have to apply for a special visa, which of course will only ever be granted to those whose politics is that of the New World Order.

Deported activist landed with bill

From Peter Mitchell in Los Angeles

AMERICAN peace activist Scott Parkin arrived back in the US today under guard after Australian authorities detained him in a Melbourne jail for five days for being a "national security risk".

The 36-year-old Texan history teacher was also given a bill for almost [eleven thousand seven hundred dollars*] after his brush with Australian authorities. Mr Parkin said he was made to feel like a terrorist and a criminal and remains baffled as to why six police officers "snatched him off the street" as he left a Melbourne cafe last Saturday.

He said he was interrogated and spent the next five days in solitary confinement in a Melbourne jail.

He was escorted by two Victorian correctional officers on a Qantas passenger plane which left Melbourne yesterday, arriving in Los Angeles this morning.

"I'm just completely baffled by all of this," said Mr Parkin, surrounded by Australian TV cameras and media, soon after his arrival at Los Angeles international airport.

Mr Parkin was in Australia as part of a six-month holiday in Australia, New Zealand and Asia. He arrived on June 1.

An activist for 15 years, he said he gave talks while in Australia about the war in Iraq and helped organise one protest against US energy company Halliburton.

"In the talks I gave I wasn't even openly critical of Australia," Mr Parkin said.

"I was being openly critical of the US occupation (of Iraq) and I was being openly critical of Halliburton."

Mr Parkin said authorities never made it clear why he had been arrested.

"They were very vague," he said. "They said I violated sections of the migration act and they said I was a direct or indirect risk to their national security."

Mr Parkin was housed alone in a jail cell that contained two concrete slabs to sleep on, a TV set and a sink.

"They gave me three couch cushions and three really crummy blankets and fed me three times a day," he said.

Mr Parkin was also handed a bill for almost [eleven thousand seven hundred dollars]. It included [four thousand two hundred and thirty-five dollars and three cents] for his airfare back to LA and [six thousand six hundred and seventy-five dollars and thirty-nine cents] for the return airfares of his two corrective services escorts as well as their accommodation in Los Angeles.

"They're staying in Anaheim on Disneyland Drive I heard," Mr Parkin quipped.

The five-day stay at the Melbourne Assessment Prison will cost him another [seven hundred and seventy-seven dollars].

"They said if I ever decided to return to Australia I'd have to pay them back," Mr Parkin said.

The activist was also banned from entering Australia for three years. He plans to fight his removal from Australia and is desperate to find out why authorities were concerned about him.

"I'd love to know the assessment in which the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) made of me to lock me up for five days in solitary confinement and then remove me from the country essentially forcibly," Mr Parkin said.

Mr Parkin warned the incident raised great concerns about freedom of speech in Australia and the US.

"I think we are seeing a crisis in freedom of speech and freedom of expression in Australia, the United States and lots of places and people need to be aware," he said.

*****

I feel strongly that most Australians would apologize to Mr. Parkin, were it within their means to do so. Most are, no doubt, reading items like this one in the Herald Sun over their morning coffee and scratching their heads in amazement. I personally plan to convey my apologies to this unfortunate man and will do so shortly via the following email address: backingscott@yahoo.com

This incident is tied not to Mr Parkin himself, who has done nothing wrong, but to the loss of accountability that has taken place under cover of national security. Since the precipitating decision took place within ASIO, and therefore subject to all kinds of legislation exempting the agency from democratic oversight, there is no way that parliament, the media or the public will ever be privy to the real reasons for Parkin's deportation.

But what really takes the cake is that Parkin has been billed for his own mistreatment! I fail to see how he is in any way responsible for the fact that ASIO suddenly and capriciously decided to assess him as a security threat. Parkin probably has the right to sue for the inconvenience and suffering caused by this sordid and despicable little act of arbitrary political harrassment - except that national security legislation probably denies anyone the right to sue ASIO.

I am at this moment deeply ashamed and embarrassed by the Australian government. I think nothing may be involved here more than the desire of those in Australia's secret government entrenched within agencies like ASIO to cover up the extent to which the country's involvement in the Iraq war was entirely motivated by mercenary concerns.

Relevant links on the Scott Parkin story:

http://users2.ev1.net/~geosynch/hgac.html
http://houston.indymedia.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=557&category_id=1
http://crikey.com.au/articles/2005/09/13-1216-1716.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0917-23.htm

QUOTE OF THE DAY: 'Is the Australian government afraid of peace activists? Or did they deport him because Scott Parkin was speaking up against their secret deals with Halliburton, 150 military contracts in 2004 alone, that include covert deals in Iraq? Or was it the kickbacks that Halliburton executives requested from Australian businesses? Might it be their profiteering out Australian bilateral aid projects in India, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam? If John Howard or ASIO have any evidence as to why Scott Parkin should be considered a security threat, they should present it to the public or apologize for their behavior.'
- Pratap Chatterjee, executive director of CorpWatch, Oakland, California, U.S.

Catch a short radio interview with Scott Parkin here.

* For reasons I don't understand, Blogigo blogging software does not show dollar signs, forcing me to write the figures out in full.

The World Socialist Web Site is one of the very few places - on the Internet or anywhere else - where you can find insightful, critical commentary on contemporary Australia. It is truly sad that virtually the only intelligent thinking about current Australian society and politics comes from a source which believes utterly and dogmatically that the only hope for mankind is something which can never possibly occur, that is to say, an international proletarian revolution. Leaving this crank ideology aside, you really won't find anyone who can lay the facts as plainly before you as WSWS writer Mike Head does in this devastating indictment of the descent of Australia's parliamentary state into the worst kind of despotism. And this is all occurring without any opposition whatsover from the opposition Labor Party or the mainstream media, which, like that in the U.S. and the U.K., has long surrendered whatever pretensions it had to the status of critical 'third estate.' Because pieces as good as this are as rare as hen's teeth, I have decided to make it this blog's inaugural post.

Australian government unveils legal framework for police state

By Mike Head
12 September 2005

In the lead-up to his September 27 “counter-terrorism summit” with the eight Australian state and territory leaders, Prime Minister John Howard last week unveiled a package of legislation that goes well beyond the already deep inroads made into essential civil liberties under the fraudulent banner of the “war on terrorism”.

With the tacit support of the Labor Party—which currently holds office in all the states and territories, and whose leaders instigated the call for the summit—Howard’s government is proposing unprecedented measures that directly target fundamental democratic rights: the freedoms of speech, association and movement, and the right not to be detained without trial.

Once again, as happened after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States and the Bali bombings of October 2002, the government is seeking to exploit a terrorist atrocity—in this case the July 7 London bombings—as a pretext for sweeping changes to the machinery of rule.

While no legal details have been provided of any of Howard’s proposals, the main lines are clear. They go far further than the previous “counter-terrorism” laws. What is being prepared is the legal scaffolding for a police state. In the name of fighting terrorism, broad provisions are being drafted that could be used to stifle political dissent and opposition.

Control orders: In secret court hearings, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) will be able to apply for 12-month control orders imposing draconian conditions on individuals, such as tracking devices, travel bans and association restrictions, simply because the security agencies accuse them of being “terrorist risks”.

Howard claimed these orders would be similar to apprehended violence orders (AVOs), taken out by individuals to protect themselves against domestic violence. But an AVO ordering a person to stay away from a place of residence bears no resemblance to an order permitting the police and intelligence services to electronically monitor a person’s movements and conversations, and bar them from travelling or meeting with political or religious colleagues.

Preventative detention: The police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) will have the power to secretly lock people away for up to 48 hours. This marks a qualitative shift in the power to detain people without trial. Victims will be imprisoned not because they are accused of committing any offence, or even alleged to have “information” relevant to terrorism (as with ASIO’s already unprecedented detention power, established in 2003), but because of what they are suspected of intending to do in the future.

At the September 27 summit, Howard will ask the premiers to pass state laws providing for longer periods of such detention, similar to the 14 days recently introduced by Blair’s Labour government in Britain. In effect, he is asking them to help bypass the Australian Constitution, which bars the federal government from detaining citizens without trial for periods that would be viewed by the High Court as punitive.

Inciting violence: Howard is proposing to outdo British Labour by outlawing “inciting violence against the community”. The British “inciting terrorism” laws can jail people for their political views, such as expressing sympathy for terrorists or calling for an understanding of the social roots of terrorism.

Howard has chosen to go even further by extending the existing sedition offences to make it a crime to write or speak in a way that supports Australia’s “enemies,” or promotes ill-will or hostility toward any group in the community, including Australian military forces overseas. The maximum penalty for sedition will be increased from 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Sedition laws are designed to suppress political and media criticism of Canberra’s underlying domestic and foreign policy. People could be jailed for opposing the war on Iraq, for example, if their views could be construed as encouraging attacks on Australian troops. At his media conference, in response to a specific question, Howard refused to rule out the possibility that journalists could be prosecuted for exposing Australian conduct abroad, such as involvement in the US torture at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, if their reportage caused reprisals against Australians.

Advocating terrorism: Similarly, the government’s unilateral powers to ban organisations without any court hearing—agreed to by Labor late last year—will be extended to include groups that “advocate” terrorism. This is far-reaching, especially given that the Criminal Code definition of terrorism is wide enough to include many traditional forms of political dissent, such as demonstrations where injury or property damage occurs.

Expanded police powers: An array of ASIO and the federal police powers will be boosted, including to use closed circuit television surveillance, secretly enter and search premises, intercept communications and seize material. ASIO’s interrogation power will be bolstered by longer jail terms for providing false or misleading information.

The AFP will have new powers to stop, question and search people on the street, seize documents and obtain airline passenger information. Its proposed “notice to produce” powers could severely affect free speech and media scrutiny. They could be used, for instance, to compel journalists to hand over their notes and recordings, including those made during interviews with confidential sources.

Citizenship: Immigrants will have to wait three years—an extra year—before being eligible for citizenship. Applications can be rejected on security grounds and more readily revoked. These changes will make it easier for the government to deport targeted individuals or detain them in immigration detention centres.

How such a vast expansion of the government’s powers, which already exist for non-citizens, can be readily used for political purposes has been demonstrated by the current detention and planned deportation of an American anti-war activist Scott Parkin. After three months in Australia, his visa has been revoked on “national security” grounds, when his only “offence” appears to be participating in protests against the war on Iraq and the activities of corporate giants such as Halliburton.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has refused to give any reason for Parkin’s removal, claiming that he cannot comment on “national security” decisions. If that is the case, then no one can challenge such deportations, no matter how flagrantly they violate freedom of expression.

A range of civil liberties, legal and media organisations have condemned Howard’s proposals and pointed to some of their implications. NSW Civil Liberties Council president Cameron Murphy said: “It’s very difficult to define when someone is inciting violence. It’s an absolute nightmare.” Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network convenor Waleed Kadous asked: “What about someone who says that the people of Iraq have the right to resist the occupation? That would contravene these laws.”

Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O’Gorman told ABC television: “If you grant huge new increases in powers without any checks or any limitations or any oversight, then, by definition, it’s a recipe for a police state.”

The new laws have nothing to do with protecting ordinary people against terrorism, the threat of which the Howard government has itself heightened through its participation in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. No new powers are needed to fight terrorism—every conceivable terrorist offence, from murder to kidnapping and arson, was already a serious crime before 2001, as was supporting, financing or planning such actions.

Significantly, apart from a vague reference to the July 7 bombings in London, Howard offered no evidence to justify the need for the latest measures. Asked by journalists at his media conference whether there was any increased risk of terrorism in the months ahead, he admitted that the government had no specific information or reason to raise its official terrorist alert level.

Even mainstream journalists, who have generally uncritically backed the government’s erosion of basic legal rights since 2001, appeared taken aback by the far-reaching character of Howard’s package. One reporter asked Howard: “[H]ow are you going to answer the criticism that these measures will go too far and that Australia is essentially being turned into some sort of quasi police state?” Howard claimed this was an “absurd proposition” but could offer no answer, except to say that court rulings would be required for “control orders”.

Bipartisan unity

The real reasons for the Howard government’s escalating anti-democratic measures lie in the deep disaffection felt by broad layers of the population toward the war in Iraq and the growing social inequality at home. Over the past four years, the government has repeatedly seized upon terrorist atrocities, and whipped up fears and insecurities, both as a convenient diversion from its own political crises and to develop a legal framework that can increasingly be used to suppress social unrest and political opposition.

So far, Howard’s “counter-terrorism” laws have been used primarily against Muslims, one of the most vulnerable segments of society, but they have the potential to be utilised against any political opponents, as Parkin’s deportation shows. Not even during World Wars I and II was anything remotely like this latest package introduced to curtail the civil rights of the entire population.

Significantly, Howard could not have brought forward his latest package without the assistance of the Labor Party. One of its leading lights, former NSW premier Bob Carr, first issued the call for the September 27 summit in the wake of the London bombings.

Since 2001, both federally and in the states, Labor has not blocked any of the sweeping “counter terrorism” provisions introduced by the Howard government, including ASIO’s detention powers, the outlawing of organisations by executive fiat and the staging of terrorist trials behind closed doors. At the federal level, Labor has at times claimed to have moderated some of the most objectionable features of the legislation. But, meanwhile, state Labor governments have worked hand in glove with Canberra, handing over their constitutional powers to Howard and passing their own laws to complement the federal provisions.

Now, while saying they are waiting to see the details, Labor’s state leaders have made it plain that they are ready to embrace Howard’s new barrage, if not demand an even deeper assault on basic rights. Carr’s successor in NSW, Morris Iemma, declared that his government had the “toughest anti-terror laws” in the country and “remains committed to working closely with the Commonwealth and all other states and territories against the threat of terrorism”. His Queensland counterpart, Peter Beattie, said: “In a nutshell, there are things that we can agree to immediately, there are things we need to clarify, there are things we need to ensure there are safeguards on. But at the end of the day we’ll work with the Prime Minister to make it a safer Australia.”

None of them has expressed any disagreement with federal Labor leader Kim Beazley, who, far from paying even lip service to civil liberties, has sought to outflank the government from the right, declaring that Howard’s proposals were inadequate to deter terrorists. This is in line with his speech to the Sydney Institute on August 4, in which he accused the government of leaving the country “unprepared” for the threat of terrorism, and called for a massive boost to the resources and powers of ASIO and the AFP.

With Labor’s help, the stage has been set for a summit at which the state and territory Labor leaders will be competing with Howard to see who can advocate the most all-encompassing and potentially totalitarian measures to expand the powers of the police-intelligence apparatus.

*****

Frankly, these are dark days indeed, and any Australian who genuinely believes in the tradition of civil rights which made us superior to most other countries without such traditions - this is, at least, what we were all taught in school - should probably consider emigrating.