"Serious threats"

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/09/serious-threats.html

In the lead up to the Sydney APEC summit in 2007, the New South Wales State Government passed totalitarian legislation to prevent"control" protests. A key part of this legislation was an "excludable persons list", composed of people who "who would pose serious threats to the safety of persons or property (or both) in an APEC security area". Despite a presumption of publication in the law, exactly who was on the list was a secret, but the NSW state police gave the usual assurances that they were all Very Dangerous People - practically terrorists - with a clear intention to act violently, and that the law was there to Prevent Total Mayhem.

They lied. The Sydney Morning Herald has now obtained a full copy of the list under freedom of information laws, and while it had the names redacted, many of the people on it could be identified. They were exactly who you'd expect: university students and Greenpeace activists. Over half had no criminal record, and yet were deemed by the Commissioner of police to be "serious threats" to public safety. The opinion of one former police officer (and now university academic) sums it up perfectly: "pure unadulterated bullshit". Rather than being threats to public safety, these were simply people the police did not want to protest. And so, with the collusion of a craven legislature, they silenced them, stripping them of their right to free speech on purely political grounds.

This is why we should never allow the police such powers: because they will abuse them, and in doing so, undermine our democracy. And its a perfect example of why Australia needs a Bill of Rights Act - to prevent this sort of abuse from happening again.

Calls for inquiry into APEC police operation

Anti Terrorism and the Criminalisation of Dissent-Lou Thatcher

This is the unedited version of a speech by Lou Thatcher, thanks Lou edited version here.


This is a speech given at the ‘Putting the Terror Laws on Trial’ forum organised by the Stop the War Coalition, June 23, 2008. The other speakers were Peter Russo, a lawyer who acted for Mohammed Haneef, and Frank, the uncle of one of the Goulburn 9 – a group of Muslim men from Sydney who have been held since November 2005 under anti-terror laws.

I had input from others in writing this speech, but I take responsibility for the opinions expressed in it: they’re not necessarily those of the arrestees or others in the solidarity campaign.
- Lou Thatcher

I’m from a group organising political solidarity and practical support for people facing charges after the G20 protests in 2006. One of the reasons we do this is because we see these cases as connected to, and as part of, broader struggles, so I’m grateful to Stop the War and to the other speakers for the chance to be part of this forum tonight.

We are here tonight because there has been a sustained offensive against people who represent any kind of threat to the conservative political agenda. The anti-terror legislation has been part of a sustained, racist campaign against Muslim communities and part of a justification for the government’s ongoing involvement in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. In a different but not unconnected way, we have seen some serious attacks on protests and protestors over the past few years.

So I’ll talk briefly about what has happened, the legal situation, and why we think this is important.

In November 2006 the G20, which is the finance ministers from the 20 biggest economies in the world plus a few representatives from bodies like the World Bank, met in Melbourne. They were met with protests.

On the Friday, a couple of smallish groups occupied the offices of Defence Force recruiting, Tenix – a major military contractor, and branches of ANZ bank, which is profiteering from the war in Iraq, among others. For these occupations – which lasted no more than 15 minutes and involved nothing more than red glitter and water pistols – people have been charged with ‘Aggravated Burglary’. This is a new and very serious charge for what is a fairly common action.
On the Friday night, in what I can only think of as an exercise in pre-emptive policing, a squatted warehouse that was the home to a counter-conference, and was providing accommodation for people from out of town, was busted and evicted by police, as was a residential squat which had hosted a fundraiser party but was otherwise unconnected to any protest action.

On the Saturday that the G20 was in town, as was standard for any meeting of the powerful these days, the city was blocked off. Barricades and police prevented anyone from going anywhere near where the G20 were meeting. In fact, the cops handed out little cards suggesting that everyone go and protest in a park. Thousands of people defied this to protest the G20 in the streets of central Melbourne, and a few hundred people diverged from the main rally, dismantled some barricades – which, again, shouldn’t have been there in the first place – and smashed the windows of a police van.

Now, personally, I’m happy to say that I think it was a good thing that the police van was smashed. I think what we’ve heard from other speakers tonight can go a little way towards explaining some of the reasons why people might be justifiably angry at law enforcement institutions. That’s not to say that the protest was a perfect model to be repeated, but I’m broadly in sympathy with the politics of confronting the barricades.

That being said, I also want to say that there are people who have been working in the solidarity campaign from the start who didn’t agree with the tactics on the day but who have been outspoken in their solidarity because they recognise, as I do, that the police response is out of proportion and that it is an attack on progressive movements generally and on all of our abilities to protest, whatever tactics we chose.

We also have to remember what it was that people were protesting about. People came with a variety of politics against the G20 - but whether it was opposition to the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan, or opposition to neoliberalism or to neocolonialism, people were saying that they oppose the policies of the G20 member states because those policies create war and poverty - that the states are violent.

And this violence puts a couple of broken windows into perspective. Arrests began the day after these protests and continued for months – the most recent arrest was made in December last year, over a year after the alleged offences. The charges are unprecendented and very serious - people are charged with things like riot, aggravated burglary and conduct endangering life; and the severity of the charges are part of the attack.

Akin Sari

Currently a man called Akin Sari is in Barwon prison serving a 28 month prison sentence, which he’s in the process of appealing. Amongst the general media hype around the G20 protests, Akin has been singled out for special condemnation & racist vilification. All of the Children’s Court cases are finished. For the people going through adult court, 10 people agreed to plead guilty to reduced charges, which leaves 13 people who will go to trial to fight the charges. The dates for these hearings were recently set for mid next year.

There has also been an absolutely unprecedented media crackdown on those facing charges. The mass media is not generally a friend of the left, but this new campaign has taken things to another level. There has been the “dob in a thug” newspaper photos, photos of “persons of interest” – trying to isolate and demonise individuals.

corporate media hacks

What happened when people were arrested in Sydney is worth looking at more closely – because these raids are an interesting example of how the attack on protests after the G20, and before APEC, come together with the climate and infrastructure of the ‘war on terror.’

taskforce slaver

The cops responsible for APEC policing worked very closely with the Victorian police – some of them went down to monitor the G20 protests, and later, when demonstrations were held outside court, Melbourne police sent up footage to the APEC taskforce. We know all this from reading the notes of Taskforce Salver, which was the taskforce set up to catch people after the G20- many of their notes were released during the committal hearing, with some bits blacked out.
From the notes we also know that Taskforce Salver had a list of five people to arrest in Sydney. When they had this list they called up a man in the APEC taskforce called Christopher Charles Nicholson. He suggested that the Sydney arrests be coordinated through either the serious crime unit or the counter-terrorism squad.

detective hill

So Detective Hill from Taskforce Salver called up the NSW counter-terrorism squad, but the cop he talked to said that he didn’t think that those arrests fell under their brief. But, when the cops knocked on – or kicked in – our friends’ doors at 6am in March last year, officers from Taskforce Salver, the APEC taskforce and the counter terrorism squad were present. So it’s clear that someone - & I’m guessing the APEC taskforce – were able to convince the counter terrorism unit that this was an appropriate way to spend their time.


The other big connection with the APEC securitisation is the fact that all of the G20 arrestees – along with one lone Sydney anti-war activist – were the first people to be put on the APEC “excluded persons” list. Now, as all except the 5 living in Sydney were prohibited at the time from leaving Victoria because of their bail conditions – that is, they were already banned from coming within hundreds of kilometres of the “restricted zone” in the CBD – this didn’t make any sense at all. Except, of course to provide a media scapegoat.

All these connections make it clear that these cases – like other political trials – are about far more than the fate of the individuals caught up in them. In some ways, this criminalisation of dissent isn’t that new - but we are also seeing a general intensification and militarisation of policing, whether it’s the APEC security zone, the anti-terror arrests the previous speakers have detailed, or cops and troops being sent into Aboriginal communities or our Pacific neighbours to deal with alleged social problems.

The G20 arrests are part of a climate of fear and a crackdown on anything perceived of as dissent – and so, the outcome will effect all of our abilities to resist this climate and to take action for what we believe in – whether through direct action, civil disobedience, or marching in the streets.

That’s why we need a vigorous, public, political defence campaign.

The entire campaign against the arrestees – the charges, the media campaign, the hype – is geared towards intimidating people out of speaking, out of being active, out of dissenting. We need a public response to this intimidation or otherwise the isolation of activists becomes endemic. Unless we are prepared to speak up in defence of protestors, we leave individuals isolated and alone.

9 of the 13 G20 defendants

We have started to see some support from activists, organisations and unions. We need to continue building the political campaign against the charges. We have a petition to drop the charges that we would like people to sign, and take away to their workplaces and collect signatures. We would like unions and organisations to pass a motion of support for the campaign – we have a model motion – and of course to donate to our solidarity fund.
Alongside this, of course, people need a legal campaign. And that’s why they need practical and financial support as well as political solidarity – lawyers cost money, as does travel, as does not being able to work because you’re in court for months.

And the people fighting the charges in court are, in many ways, fighting for the rest of us as well as for themselves, so any help you can give will be appreciated. For more information and updates, and to download the petition, see http://www.afterG20.org. You can email afterG20@gmail.com.

Funds are needed urgently for legal and other support expenses.
If you can help, the solidarity campaign has a bank account:
Melbourne University Credit Union Limited
Account name: G20 Arrestee Solidarity Network
cuscau2sxxx (only if transferring from overseas)
BSB 803-143 A/C number: 13291 (all transfers)

G20- Jail, Court, & Police Investigation

	In November 2006, people took to the streets of Melbourne to confront the G20, a meeting of the world’s most powerful finance ministers whose policies perpetrate suffering and violence in countless communities around the world every day. Since that protest, Victorian and Federal police have carried out a vast operation of surveillance and arrests, raiding houses at dawn and slapping protestors with ludicrous charges and repressive bail conditions. This is a campaign of intimidation and part of an attempt to criminalise protest. The legal process for those charged after the G20 protests moves slowly on. There have been a few developments this month. Akin Sari sentenced Akin Sari was sentenced to 28 months gaol with a minimum non-parole period of 14 months. Judge Punshon also ordered him to pay $8 310 for damaged to a police van. Akin pleaded guilty to 9 charges including riot, assault and aggravated burglary. Amongst the general media hysteria about the G20 protests, Akin has been singled out for special condemnation and racist vilification. Arrested on November 19, the day after the street protests, he was initially denied bail for a number of weeks. Bail was eventually granted, but was revoked when he breached his reporting conditions and travelled to Sydney. He has spent roughly 7 months locked up already, so he will spend at least another 7 months behind bars. Akin Sari has been moved to Barwon Prison. Harder for people to visit. New postal address: Locked Bag 7, Lara VIC 3212. Make sure you put a return name and address or it won’t be accepted. Committal Hearing Continues The committal hearing for the remaining G20 defendants going through adult court began on February 18. During the hearing, 10 people agreed to plead guilty to reduced charges, leaving 13 people still going through the hearing. In a committal hearing the prosecution has to prove to the magistrate that there’s enough evidence for the charges to go to trial with some chance that people will be found guilty. Over three weeks the defence cross-examined a number of witnesses, most of whom were police officers. At the time of writing, people are still waiting for the magistrate to determine which charges will be going to trial. When she rules on this in late March a date for trial will be set. Those who agreed to plead guilty will have their next hearing in early April. All of those who took plea bargains pleaded guilty to riot, and some individuals also pleaded guilty to other charges including criminal damage and recklessly causing serious injury. The prosecution have said that they’ll be seeking jail sentences for some people. People from the G20 Arrestee Solidarity Network and Food not Bombs tried to make court more bearable by providing picnic lunches and money from fundraisers was used to help people with travel and legal costs. Taskforce Salver Investigation Notes During the committal hearing the defence obtained copies of many of the notes made by police about the G20 protests, including notes from ‘Taskforce Salver’, the taskforce set up to investigate G20 protestors. These notes are quite extensive, although sections are blacked out and other bits are poorly photocopied, and they add to the information we have about how and why people were arrested. Here are some preliminary notes on what we can learn from this information. The notes make it clear that, from the beginning of the investigation, the police were targeting individuals they had already identified as activists and therefore believed were ‘leaders.’ As well as going after individuals they had picked out from the start, they also attended protests in both Melbourne and Sydney in the hope of identifying people in the crowds, and arrested people from these identifications. Police who have monitored forest protesters, the Newtown police in Sydney and a number of universities and schools provided information to Taskforce Salver. Activist social networks were also targeted. In January of 2001, groups of plain clothes police carried out surveillance of a number of pubs in inner-city Melbourne. (They were given instructions that officers drinking shouldn’t drive or arrest anyone.) Police also tried to identify people by searching for the names of punk bands from patches worn to the protest. Clothing, including shoes, bags and hats, was often used in making identifications and was seized in searches as people were arrested. Taskforce Salver worked very closely with the APEC taskforce in Sydney. As we already knew, police from the APEC squad were present at the G20 protests. They were keen to help with the Sydney arrests and exchanged information with Melbourne. In return, Taskforce Salver sent APEC police video footage of solidarity demonstrations outside the court in Melbourne. It was the APEC taskforce who recommended that the Sydney arrests be coordinated through the Counter Terrorism unit. When a member of Taskforce Salver first talked to the Counter Terrorism unit after this suggestion, they originally refused and said it wasn’t in their charter. The APEC taskforce, who arranged logistics for the arrests, nevertheless requested their involvement. As the Counter Terrorism unit did take part in the arrests, it is clear the cops in charge of policing APEC won their argument that these arrests and these political crimes should be dealt with by Counter Terrorism police. Taskforce Salver also used the intensification of policing in the lead up to APEC to help their inquiries more generally. When they released the infamous ‘persons of interest’ photos to Crimestoppers and the media, they hoped that the hype around APEC would help get them national media coverage. Indeed, the photos – which showed 24 people without indicating what, if any, crime they were suspected of, did receive widespread attention and a number of people were identified from them or were frightened into turning themselves in. What can we learn from all this? That talking in pubs isn’t safe. That police are worried about protesters. That when we’re trying to hide our identities we need to be more thorough. That we could be under surveillance. These are things that perhaps we should have known already but didn’t want to take seriously. But although this is serious and frightening it isn’t the end of the world. We can learn from this, keep supporting each other and continue resisting openly. The most important thing right now is that some of our friends and comrades are awaiting sentencing or still going through the tense tedium of court – or, in the worst case, in prison. The G20 investigations are a test for both sides. The police have thrown intense resources towards them and what they manage to get away with in these trials is going to set new limits for what they’ll try to get away with next time. Anyone who thinks that we need to keep opening the spaces for protest and direct action needs to support the arrestees both politically and practically. For more information about ongoing solidarityorganising, see www.afterg20.org thanks to Mutiny Zine Chur

Protests in Melbourne over NZ Crackdown

AUST: Protests in Melbourne over NZ terrorist raids -16/10/2007
Political activists opposed to this week's police operation inNew Zealand against alleged guerilla-style training camps in the eastern Bay of Plenty have staged a demonstration in the Australian city of Melbourne. Around25 people gathered outside the New Zealand Consulate in Collins Street,Melbourne, earlier today, watched by eight Australian Federal Police officers.Speaker - Sina Brown-Davis, Polynesian anti-globalisation activist

www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/s2061270.htm

Navajo families arrested in Canada as Terrorists

"Hey. I haven't heard any more news but over the weekend, 28 Navajo
were arrested in Ontario and put in a 48-hour detention for being
"suspected terrorists..." Aside from being absurd, it's interesting to
note that a couple weeks ago Canada heroically stepped forward saying
indigenous people should be allowed to freely cross the US/CAN
border... but I have to wonder now, is it so they can arrest them all?"

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=696107

A group of nomadic Navajo Indians en route to support the aboriginal
quarry protest near Deseronto have been arrested, says a member
currently at the quarry.

Twenty-eight members of the tribe, an offshoot of the Navajo, were on
their way to Deseronto in nine vehicles with 10 horses in tow to show
support and respect for a group of Tyendinaga Mohawks, said Spata
Desareau, 64, a member of the tribe. They travelled across western
Canada without incident, but once in Ontario, were stopped by law
enforcement three times - Wawa, Sault St. Marie and finally Kaladar,
where they were taken into police custody Sunday, he said. "They're
saying they're a political organization, which is a way of saying
they're a terrorist organization," said Desareau of the
group ranging in age from two to 72. "I could understand if it was all
warriors coming for a demonstration, but it wasn't."

The nomadic group travels the desert from Arizona to the southernmost
part of British Columbia, their starting point in a week-long journey
to Deseronto, he said. They were coming "to honour (protest leader
Shawn Brant) and the people that live here. In western Canada, we have
reserves that are very poverty stricken. There are third-world
conditions."

Desareau, who had cellphone contact with the group, said he believes
they were taken into custody by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to
the Kingston detachment, where he heard they will be held for 48
hours. They were stopped on Highway 41, he said.

It didn't ring any bells for OPP Sgt. Scott McRae, who said if the
group was on Highway 41, the OPP would be policing it.

"I've been here all weekend and it's been very peaceful in that area,"
he said. "We don't know anything about it."

No one from the RCMP could be reached for comment Sunday.

The group was unarmed, said Desareau, who didn't believe they would be
held a full 48 hours. But it upsets him that they were stopped.

"I don't believe they have a right to do that," he said. "They broke
no laws other than that they're native."

Under Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act, revised after the Sept. 11 attacks
of 2001, 48 hours is the length of time a suspected terrorist can be
arrested and detained without a warrant.

http://intercontinentalcry.org/navajo-families-arrested-in-canada-as-terrorists/

Haere Atu Poaka

oztralia has always been a poaka state, ask Aboriginal peoples

Sydney APEC Protest where the Police outnumbered the protesters. I shot this on a camera Phone and a cheap digital. Also got a few clips from various news sites. Strangely the news footage dissapeared shortly afterwards, presumably it wasnt appropriate for the general public

PUBLIC ENEMY "Don't Believe The Hype"

Dedicated to al the A.C.D.C crew and all those opposing apec and the police state in Sydney.

protest at apec

Important Legal Briefing- From Sydney Human Rights Monitors

For all of those who plan to excerise their cvil and human rights in Eora Country over the course of Asshole Politicians Excrete Capitalism
Love,and Solidairty to All.
Haere Atu apec

2 September 2007

Special Melbourne edition !!!

This edition of the Human Rights Monitors Info Sheet is intended for those coming to Sydney form Melbourne and other non-Sydney locations around Australia.
The meeting of 21 of the world's leaders to Sydney has led to unprecedented security measures being taken during their visit. Special powers have been given to police under the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Act 2007 and these will be in force from August 30 to September 12. The main APEC event is the Leaders' Week, with September 7 (the Friday) a public holiday.

Although this was written on 2 September 2007, the situation in Sydney is fluid and it would be a good idea to try and get an update from locals when you arrive in Sydney.

Who's who
The main protest march, planned for the Saturday, is being organised by the Stop Bush Coalition ( http://stopbush2007.org). A number of autonomous actions are also being organised by Flare in the Void ( http://flareinthevoid.wordpress.com). Some actions may also be organised by other groups. Some information about events is deliberately not mentioned in this newsletter as the details are confidential.

What's when
The following information on the Stop Bush Coalition is from the website, Flare in the Void info is from their August 2007 zine, and other information is from the corporate press. You should check with each group that the information is still accurate.

Tuesday 4th
rally at 5.00pm to mark the arrival of Bush in Australia. At the time of writing, the location is undecided, but is probably Central. Please check
http://stopbush2007.org for more info. Organisers estimate 1,000 people.
Opening of Flare in the Void from 5.00pm-ish. To find out where Flare in the Void is being held, text 0434 585 264.

Wednesday 5th
Student strike. Organisers estimate 1-2,000. Please check
http://stopbush2007.org for more info.
Flare in the Void workshops.
Legal training sessions for legal observers. 6.00-8.00pm at University of Technology, Sydney, Students Association Backroom. Building 1 (the main building), opposite Central station.

Thursday 6th
Flare in the Void decentralised actions day across Sydney. Contact Flare in the Void for more info.

10.00am Flare in the Void legal briefing for latecomers.
Falun Dafa protest, march from Hyde Park through Sydney CBD
Friday 7th
A public holiday in the Sydney Metro area.
Falun Dafa protest - CBD
Maritime Union of Australia protest - Hyde Park
Chinese Freedom rally - location not known.
Flare in the Void workshops.
1.00pm (perhaps 2.30pm). Flare in the Void Legal briefing for latecomers.
Stop Bush 2007 convergence in Newtown. Check website for more info.

Saturday 8th
The main protest march. Police estimate 5-10,000 will attend. Check
http://stopbush2007.org for more info. The march route is contested. A meeting of the Stop Bush coalition on 27 August 2007 reaffirmed its march route (Town Hall/George St/Martin Place/Hyde Park). The police have consistently opposed this march route and as of today there is no agreement. The last meeting of Stop the Bush before the protest will be on Monday 3 September 2007. Again, check the website for more details.

Vietnamese community protest - Belmore Park
Amnesty International protest - Victoria Park
Chinese People for 2008 Olympics - Chinatown
Sunday 9th
Mutiny chill-out picnic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legal stuff: restricted areas and declared areas

The Act introduced for APEC speaks of two types of security zones: "restricted areas" and "declared areas". To make them easier to visualise, this article will refer to them as red areas and green areas (respectively).
The red areas are areas of maximum security. Police may search all non-residential premises without a warrant. It is likely that they will be surrounded by fences and armed police. There is a legal obligation to provide ID to a police officer on request. It is an offence punishable by 6 months imprisonment (in some circumstances, 2 years) to try to enter a red area without special justification. Special justification means that you live or work in the area: it is up to you to prove this if you are claiming a special justification for being in a red area. The rest of this article will only speak about green areas. It is assumed that, as a protester, you will get nowhere near a red area. There is no legal obligation to tell the public where the red areas are, but press reports indicate the Sydney Opera House, Government House, various hotels and the Sydney Convention/ Exhibition Centre. The rest of this article will only speak about green areas.

Green areas: geography, check points, cordons and road blocks

The largest green area is that part of the CBD north of King Street. There is a presumption that members of the public can enter and leave the green areas. At the entrance to green areas, or once inside a green area, the police may set up check points, cordons or road blocks in order to stop and search people or vehicles. The police can close roads.

The largest green area includes most of the CBD north of King Street, Hickson Road and parts of Darling Harbour. Part of this area will be fenced off in any event, with a 2.8 metre tall fence, running along Bridge St, the location of the Australian Stock Exchange. At the time of writing, the fence has been extended so that it covers much of downtown Sydney, near Martin Place, and Circular Quay, where the ferries are. The fences are secured by concrete blocks and seem impossible to push over.
On August 24, other green areas were added: Sydney airport, RAAF Airbase Richmond, parts of Kirribilli, the Icebergs Club and surrounds in Bondi, and a number of hotels (the Sheraton on the Park in Elizabeth St, Hilton Hotel on George and Pitt Sts, Observatory Hotel, Kent St and the Marriott Hotel, College St.). The law allows for the Minister to add other green areas. Check the daily press for details for any added green areas closer to the day.

Note: the press speaks of "no-go areas." This is inaccurate, as that might indicate a red or a green area. Check with the APEC legal hotline (below).
Green areas: searches and prohibited items
The police may do a pat-down search as a condition of entering the green area. A person's entry may also be made conditional upon giving the police a prohibited item. A police officer who is given or seizes a prohibited item doesn't have to give it back.

Prohibited items are spray paint cans, chains, handcuffs or other devices capable of being used to lock persons to other persons or things, poles that are more than 1 metre in length, marbles, ball-bearings or other similar spherical items, smoke devices, flares, flammable or noxious liquids or substances, laser pointers, devices that are capable of being used to interfere with broadcast or communication devices. Regulations closer to the time might add other items to the list.

Green areas: reasonable directions and showing ID
Police officers have the power to give reasonable directions to any person or group providing that it substantially assists security, safety or "in preventing or controlling a public disorder." There is a clear obligation to give your name to a police officer upon request if they are in a red area. There is no clear obligation to do so in a green area. A police negotiator advised a representative of Stop Bush 2007 on August 17 that people will be have to show their IDs to police officers in the green areas. However, this is legally doubtful. If asked for your name or ID, consider asking the police officer if you are legally obliged to do that and what the basis of that obligation is. Some people have been reported that they will enter the green area without ID in order to test police powers.

Refusing to comply with a "reasonable direction" is not an offence, but allows the police to escort that person from the green area. The legislation does not appear to provide a limit on how far a person can be escorted from the green area, but in past protests the police have arrested people for breach of the peace and then escorted them many miles away and the released them. This is of doubtful legality.

Green areas: keeping people out and the excluded persons' list
A person can be excluded from a green area if they fail to agree to a pat-down search; fail to agree to their vehicle being searched on entering; unlawfully resist, hinder or obstruct a police search; fail to give up a prohibited item as a condition of entry; are on a road closed for APEC purposes or fail to comply with a reasonable direction. One of the powers that have gained media attention is the creation of an excluded persons' list. No criminal convictions are necessary to be on the list. It is only necessary that the Police Commissioner satisfy himself that a person would pose serious threats to the safety of persons or property in a green or red area. No more specific criteria have been announced so far. Police have said they will write to people beforehand saying that they are on the list, but they don't have to legally keep this promise.

According to media reports, 29 people are on the excluded persons list. A Sydney tabloid has published the names and photos of 27 of them. There may be another list (or lists) for private police consumption. You will only know if you are on this list when told by the police - perhaps even at the entry to a green area.

Bail
Bail laws have been changed in relation to three offences: assaulting a police officer, throwing a missile at a police officer and maliciously damaging property. There is a presumption against bail for people charged with these offences. This is open to abuse, as any act of escorting a person from the green area, or any arrest, can easily allow the police to manufacture an allegation of assault.

We have been advised that those arrested during APEC will be taken to Parramatta and Surry Hills police stations. The police have boasted that they can process up to 500 people. The Act allows for special audiovisual links in relation to bail applications for these offences. If arrested after 2.00pm or so, it may be difficult to get in a bail application that day. It may take longer to process out of state persons as the police of that state will be contacted by NSW police.

If appearing before a court, it may be the case that you are subjected to a strip search. It should be performed in minimum time and with respect. It can be (but does not have to be) humiliating - it happens to people in prison all the time.
People arrested may be detained in buses. You may be there a long time. Consider having medication or a medical certificate if prolonged detention will cause problems. This will not guarantee that the police look after you, but it may help.

This newsletter has only one passage in bold and in a box, because it is so important:

If arrested, do not give an interview or make any comments about any alleged offences. Anything you tell a police officer is never off the record. Threats to charge you if you don't give an interview are bullshit - they will charge you anyway.

Human Rights Monitors: policing the police
Human Rights Monitors are a Sydney-based community group, mainly of law students and lawyers, who are concerned about aggressive policing and protests. We will be attending the main APEC protests and other actions by invitation.
We will be wearing marked yellow vests and normally operate in pairs. Our aim is to collect eye-witness, photographic and video evidence of any misbehaver or illegal activity by the police. We will also be handing out bust cards, which will have the phone number to ring in case you want to speak to a solicitor for legal advice.
We will have 20-30 Human Rights Monitors, a number working 'undercover' and 30 solicitors on-call to give phone advice.

Further information
An 8-page leaflet will be handed out by Human Rights Monitors at protests, Flare in the Void and elsewhere on request. A limited number of workshops for particular groups can be arranged. Contact Dale on dalemills@cantab.net or 0422 644 363 for more information about Human Rights Monitors.
The APEC Legal Hotline will be 0401 427 588 or 0432 598 318. This number will be open during the main protest days and also be distributed on stickers and laminated business cards.

Solidarity & Unity

Steel Pulse-Handsworth Revolution

Arohanui (big love) to all the crews & whanau that turned up inside and outside the Court today.
Kia kaha tatou

Poaka defend scuffle arrest
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/police-defend-g20-arrest/2007/08/31/1188067324156.html

APEC's banned persons 'will be contacted'
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/31/2020248.htm?section=justin

'Excluded' protester to march against APEC
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-political-necessity/2007/08/31/1188067353653.html

Concerns over tough APEC police powers
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2005230.htm

DALE MILLS: Because what it means is that in every big protest in the future there may be similar emergency powers, then similar emergency powers are introduced at small protests then the emergency powers may become permanent.

"A New Day is Dawning for Globalization Critics"

Around 100,000 demonstrators are expected at the G8 summit in June. DW-WORLD.DE spoke with Sven Giegold, one of the founders of Attac, a group which describes itself as a skeptical of globalization, about the protests.

DW-WORLD.DE: Leaders from the world's most industrialized nations meet every year at
In Germany, around 900 police officers recently raided 40 sites linked to left-wing activists believed to be preparing attacks on the summit. Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has also threatened to have potentially dangerous protestors taken into custody for up to two weeks before and during the summit. Do such measures intimidate or incite G8 opponents?

We see more people mobilizing. The measures were clearly illegal and have motivated people to go to the summit who were previously not even considering it. There's a danger, though, that the assurances by participants -- Christian groups, trade unions and environmental organizations -- that the protests will be peaceful will just get lost in the shuffle.

What is the aim of Attac and other G8 opponents in Heiligendamm -- a complete blockade of the summit?

Some of the groups want to show their symbolic protest on the streets; others really do want to completely block off the summit. With 16,000 police officers and a security fence costing 12 million euros ($16 million), that won't be successful. Attac relies on peaceful protests, but we also support civil disobedience -- such as sit-ins at access routes -- among our activists. Civil disobedience is simply part of social movements, such as the civil rights movement in the United States or Gandhi's movement in India. We want to base our protests on this tradition.
Demonstrators will not be able to directly approach G8 participants since protests are now forbidden within 200 meters (657-foot) of the security fence, and that area will be widened during the summit. Attac has filed a legal suit about these no-go zones. Why?

We haven't filed suit about the security fence per se, although we reject it as a symbol of the separation between the rich and poor. We have filed suit against the additional no-go zone where demonstrations are now banned. It's an impingement on the constitutional right to assemble in public that we can't even demonstrate within view of the summit area. We will take our case all the way to the constitutional court.

At such short notice?

We have received signals that a binding decision will be handed down before the summit begins. Unfortunately, the protest ban was announced at such short notice that it has been difficult to use legal means to appeal the prohibition. That's an additional restriction of the principles of a constitutional state.
Some of the protestors have threatened to break through the security fence. At the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001, a demonstrator died and 400 others were wounded. How likely do you think it is that something similar might happen in Heiligendamm?




We think the danger is minimal. But one can never rule out the possibility that a few protestors may turn violent, and given the way the police are acting at the moment, that chance has not become less probable. We also have to keep in mind that the police started the violence in Genoa. If demonstrators break the law, then police have to react -- that's clear. But it isn't legitimate for a free government to annul the presumption of innocence and take people into custody or deny them entry into the country as a preventative measure. That creates an atmosphere in which peaceful protests become less likely.

Criticizing globalization is no longer only a matter for the left. Peter Marx, secretary general of Germany's nationalist NPD party, has dubbed 2007 the "year of nationalist resistance to globalization" and called for protests against the "summit of fat cats." Do you fear that false alliances could evolve in Heiligendamm?
One can't speak of alliances. The protests that we and others of the civil society are planning are based on the idea of a different kind of globalization. None of us wants to revert back to the concept of a nation state. Right-wing extremists want more of a "Germany for Germans" or "France for the French." That's not our vision: we want international relations that are based on solidarity, democracy and environmental consciousness. There won't be Nazis where we'll be protesting, and they are definitely not welcome among us.

What does the G8 summit mean for the anti-globalization movement in Germany?

I am not aware of an anti-globalization movement in Germany. We want a different form of globalization and therefore call ourselves globalization critics. I do believe that, with this G8 summit, a new day is dawning for the movement. It's interesting that the movement is not being mobilized by the big groups who will be traveling by bus to the summit. The protests are being organized much more by smaller, local initiatives. After this summit, no one will be able to say that social movements are lacking in Germany and that people cannot be mobilized. One is going to have to reckon with this movement in the future.

Sven Giegold is a co-founder of the Attac network that seeks a different form of globalization. He is a member of the German national coordinating committee.

Leading Tonga pro-democracy MP convicted over protest march

Posted at 08:04 on 07 May, 2007 UTC

Tonga’s leading pro-democracy MP, Akilisi Pohiva, has been convicted on charges relating to a protest march on June 1 last year.

Along with local businessman Tuí Uata at the Magistrate Court, Mr Pohiva was found guilty of encouraging and abetting with others to obstruct police lawful duties.

The Tongatapu number one people’s representative to parliament was ordered to pay a 220 US dollar fine.

On a second charge of encouraging others to commit a crime he was convicted and discharged without a fine.

Our correspondent Mateni Tapueluelu says the charge relates to a protest by public servants who were marching to deliver a petition to the royal palace.

“The people were staging a protest march and they were ordered by the police not to commence their march before 2pm that day, but Akilisi and the promotoers pushed forward that they should stage their march since there was no threat to peace and security. And because they disobeyed the police order, they were found guilty in the magistrates court.”

Mateni Tapueluelu says the case is unrelated to court proceedings stemming from the Nukualofa riot last November, in which Mr Pohiva has been charged sedition.

http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=32022

Mexico Under Scrutiny by Inter-American Commission

HUMAN RIGHTS:

Diego Cevallos

MEXICO CITY, Apr 9 (IPS) - The delegates of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) who began a visit to Mexico Monday will leave at the end of the week with their suitcases full of files and complaints by civil society groups, which say the human rights situation in the country remains serious and that the government is attempting to criminalise social protest.

Among the cases that the visitors will study is the alleged rape and subsequent death of an elderly indigenous woman at the hands of soldiers, the dismantling of a special prosecutor's office that was investigating the abuses committed in the "dirty war" against opponents of the government in the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and sexual harassment of women taken into custody by the police after a protest in the town of San Salvador Atenco.

The IACHR delegates will also receive detailed reports on the arrests of young demonstrators ordered by a governor who now sits on the ministerial cabinet, and on the harsh crackdown on a months-long social uprising in the southern state of Oaxaca.

Only the case of the indigenous woman, which occurred in February, and the closure of the special prosecutor's office correspond to the administration of conservative President Felipe Calderón, who took office in early December.

Nevertheless, human rights groups see the way these cases were handled as clearly indicative of the new government's approach to human rights questions.

The delegation will be headed by the president of the IACHR himself, Florentín Meléndez, who is rapporteur for Mexico; IACHR executive secretary Santiago Cantón; and human rights expert Daniela Salazar.

The representatives, who will be in Mexico until Apr. 14 on the seventh IACHR mission to the country, were invited by the government itself. But activists say the team has come to Mexico in response to repeated requests by human rights groups.

"We have been asking for this visit since last year, which was a very bad year for Mexico in terms of human rights, just as 2007 has started off to be," Edgar Cortez, head of the All Rights for All Human Rights Network, told IPS.

The 54 local organisations that make up the Network have spent months preparing the reports that they will present to the IACHR, an Organisation of American States (OAS) body. So has the government, whose officials will meet with the delegates, as will legislators and members of the judiciary.

Although the majority of denunciations by human rights groups involve incidents and events that occurred between 2004 and 2006, activists also complain that the current government has not taken any steps to clarify them and that it has not made it clear what its human rights policy will be.

Activists have repeatedly urged the Calderón administration to clarify its stance on human rights -- something that may occur this week, since the government has stated that the IACHR delegation will be informed of its official priorities in that area.

According to Cortez, the Calderón administration "has been guilty of omission with regard to human rights, and has also shown signs that it is really not very interested in the question."

Human rights groups have been concerned about the deployment of army troops to different parts of the country, ordered by the president on the argument that they would be fighting drug trafficking. In their view, it is a strategy aimed at militarising the country and criminalising social protest.

They also complain that the government has done nothing to clarify cases like the violent repression of protesters in the state of Oaxaca during the social uprising staged in the second half of 2006 to demand the removal of corrupt, abusive local authorities.

A total of 23 demonstrators and others -- including an independent U.S. journalist -- were killed, hundreds were arrested, an unspecified number of people went missing, and there was abundant testimony of abuses of power, all of which ended in total impunity.

Another issue of concern to activists was the disbanding of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Social and Political Movements of the Past, created by former president Vicente Fox (2000-2006).

The special prosecutor's office was charged with investigating the repression against opponents of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) regimes that ruled Mexico from 1929 to 2000. A total of 532 people were "disappeared" during the "dirty war" and thousands were tortured. But the office met with little success in its attempts to take legal action against those responsible for the abuses, such as former president Luis Echeverría (1970-1976).

Calderón allowed the special prosecutor's office to die a quiet death, and so far has given no indication of whether he plans to do anything to clarify human rights crimes committed by the security forces in the past.

"Hopefully, after the IACHR visit, the measures to be taken by the government in terms of human rights will be made clear; we really need to know what it plans to do," said Cortez.

One of the steps taken by Calderón that put human rights defenders on the alert was his decision to name Francisco Ramírez, former governor of the west-central state of Jalisco, as interior minister.

As governor, Ramírez ordered a harsh clampdown in May 2004 on hundreds of young demonstrators who had gathered in the western city of Guadalajara to protest against the Latin America/Caribbean-European Union summit.

The police illegally detained 73 protesters, tortured at least 19, and submitted 55 others to degrading treatment, according to an exhaustive report by the National Human Rights Commission, a government body.

At the time, Ramírez downplayed the accusations and said the police acted appropriately. He even decorated police officers implicated in illegal acts.

"Leaving internal policy and part of the official security strategies in the hands of Ramírez is simply appalling," said Cortez.

Activists say that under Ramírez, the government is adopting strategies to cover up for soldiers accused of committing abuses and crimes while on duty.

They argue, for instance, that the government is concealing the guilt of soldiers in the death of 73-year-old Ernestina Ascensio. On Feb. 25, the elderly sheepherder, who belonged to the Nahua indigenous community, was reportedly brutally raped by troops in the rural district of Soledad Atzompa in the eastern state of Veracruz on the Gulf of Mexico.

The initial forensic reports and testimony pointed to the involvement of soldiers. However, the Calderón administration denied that the woman had been raped, and claimed that she died of intestinal bleeding and severe malnutrition.

Human rights groups also argue that the government has been tolerant of abuses committed in May 2006 by the security forces in the case of San Salvador Atenco, 15 km east of the capital. During an operation to evict street vendors from an unauthorised area of the town, female protesters were purportedly subjected to humiliating sexual abuse, according to several reports. (END/2007)