Palm Island Activist Lex Wotton given standing ovation

Academics and activists applaud former prisoner Lex Wotton at the First Nations Conference at Townsville in north Queensland.

Vanuatu Government must walk with its people on WTO decision ‐ PCC

PRESS RELEASE: For immediate Release Vanuatu Government must walk with its people on WTO decision ‐ PCC

( PCC is the biggest civil society body in the Pacific with a membership of approximately 6.5mill out of the 8.5 million in the Pacific )

The Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) is urging the Government of Vanuatu to reconsider its decision to silence the church body and other ni‐Vanuatu voices trying to fulfill their rightful responsibility as fellow burden‐ sharers in such an important decision.

PCC’s Acting General Secretary, Reverend Francois Pihaatae said, the Government of Vanuatu has repeatedly heard the call of its communities, the traditional chiefs and civil society organisations, including the Church body, to refrain from continuing on its current path towards joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

“In recent months, the call has taken to the streets because the voices of a people would not be heeded,” he said
While recognising the value and necessity of trade regimes and economic development, their very purpose is for the benefit of the human person; on their own, no system is self‐justifying. The concern for the human person, especially the poor and marginalized, is a central concern of our Christian faith. The question, therefore, is whether joining the WTO will enhance the wellbeing and opportunities for the poor or will it deepen poverty and increase inequality.

According to Rev.Francois, the voice of opposition by the churches, NGOs and community groups, including their chiefs, are both genuine and justifiable given that joining the WTO, whilst offering no clear advantages, will have profound risks to peoples’ livelihoods and to their future. “The binding and far‐reaching conditions of joining the WTO accentuate the inextricable link between what the government decides and the wellbeing of all ni‐ Vanuatu.”

“Concerns stem from what ni‐Vanuatu see as a basic lack of meaningful consultation on the implications and benefits of WTO membership, through to outright rejection of current accession conditions. Such a decision can only be made through meaningful, informed and participatory dialogue with the people, which, apparently, was not the case.Clearly, Vanuatu’s accession to the WTO under current provisions does not have the support of a significant part of Vanuatu society.”
“Opposition to the direction the Government is taking has also offered much constructive criticism in pursuit of more favourable participation in global trade. Alternative view points have been offered by members of the ‘Say No to WTO’ campaign comprising various Vanuatu community groups, local CSOs and international NGOs, which have freely invested valuable resources to inform discussions.”

According to Rev. Francois, this expression of public courage and will by the people to accompany their government in negotiations with the WTO is therefore to be celebrated, not stifled.“Limiting the people’s ability to freely organize in a civil manner and to express opposition to the existing WTO accession package is counterproductive to the very foundation upon which the Vanuatu Government seeks to govern, to serve, and indeed to ensure sustainable security.”

“Rather than stifle opposition to the current WTO accession process through restricting civil organisation, the Government is encouraged to respect and embracethe opportunity being extended by the people to heed their views and to profit from their contributions, technical and otherwise.”

“Beyond the technicalities and specifics involved, whether these concern trade rules or the economicsand legalities of issues associated with WTO accession discussions, it is the firm view of the PCC that there is a key message from this experience requiring discernment.” According to Rev. Francois, the Church, traditional leaders, communities, CSOs and individuals have joined in expressing a common desire ‐ that the Government of Vanuatu heedits people and walk with them.


Ends....

For more information please contact the Communications Officer, Losana McGowan, Phone: +679 3311 277, Mobile: +679 9068118

_______________________________________________

Report details unacceptable impacts from deep sea mining by Canada’s Nautilus

MEDIA RELEASE:

Report details unacceptable impacts from deep sea mining by Canada’s Nautilus
November 24, 2011 – Port Morseby, Papua New Guinea/ Ottawa, Canada/ Melbourne, Australia. The Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and MiningWatch Canada and have released a new report called “Out of Our Depth.”. It details serious environmental and social impacts expected as a result of unprecedented mining of the ocean floor in PNG.

Canadian mining company Nautilus Minerals Inc. (Nautilus) plans to extract gold and copper from the floor of the Bismarck Sea in 2012 at its Solwara 1 project. The project will mine active and inactive hydrothermal vents at 1.46 kilometres under the sea. Thousands of these vents over an 11 hectare area will be destroyed. Possibly the origins of life on earth, these high-temperature underwater vents host unique species, most of which have not yet been identified or studied.

The underwater mine site is located close to coastal communities that rely heavily on sea food for diet and income. The project is raising alarm among these directly affected communities, as well as among PNG citizens who question the environmental process that led to the licensing of the project.

Moses Murray, advisor to the “sea bed mining forum” of community organisations from New Ireland Province, East New Britain and Madang, says:

“The PNG Constitution in its preamble provides for sharing of natural resources with future generations. The current trend shown by our political leaders have taken the direction that they are not worried about the future generations anymore. It is “the now” that matters to them. Every mine on land, be they gas, oil, and other natural resources including mining under the ocean is set to be opened. The brain, pen and ink used to draft the preamble of the Constitution was a waste of time.”

Helen Rosenbaum, author of the report, says “Nautilus has prepared a deeply flawed Environmental Impact Statement. For example, the company has insufficiently tested the toxicity of its process on vent species, and has not sufficiently considered toxic effects on organisms in the marine food chain.”

Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch Canada, an editor for the report, notes “once again a Canadian company is set to inflict unusual environmental and social harm in Papua New Guinea in a way that would not be permitted in Canada. Canadian mining company Placer Dome dumped mine waste into the sea for many years and Barrick Gold is currently using a major river system as a mine waste dump. It is tragic that Canadian mining companies are profiting from weak governance in Papua New Guinea.”

For more info:
Moses Murray, elishbru@daltron.com.pg
Jane Kesno, President, Namatanai District Council of Women in New Ireland Province, Papua New Guinea, tel. (+675) 71802362, janekesno@gmail.com
Catherine Coumans, MiningWatch Canada, tel. (+1) 613-569-3439, catherine@miningwatch.ca
Helen Rosenbaum, Melbourne, tel. (+61) (0)413 201 793; hrose@vic.chariot.net.au
For a copy of the report see: http://www.deepseaminingoutofourdepth.org

Nautalis testing experimental seabed mining in the Pacific

In this video community groups in New Ireland and East New Britain express their views about deep sea mining in the Bismarck and the Solomon Sea by Canadian corporation Nautilus. If they are allowed to go ahead there will be an explosion of deep sea mining in the Pacific.

We have very little understanding of the deep sea. We have even less knowledge of the potential impacts of deep sea mining on marine life and local communities who depend on the sea for their lives and livelihoods.

Another case of greed over the environment and communities rights ... it needs to be stopped!

Waziyatawin Speaks to Occupy Oakland

There is NO Separation between colonial Expansion the ongoing subjugation of Indigenous life, and the Capitalist exploitation of Life for economic gain. Further these objectives have always been pursued with extreme brutality and a callous disregard for any life that gets in the way.
If you feel expendable its because to the current power structure you are, all life is.
In the conquest of the Americas Capitalism is inseparable from colonialism and imperialism." Waziyata Win

Activists hold alternative meeting in Hawaii

Housing NZ development in East Auckland affects residents of 50 years

He whawhai mutunga kore - koira te korero a nga whanau Maori kei te rawhiti o Taamaki Makaurau e noho ana. No ratou nga kainga o Ruapotaka e turakina ana e Te Manatu Whare hei whakatu whare hou.

Public forum on WEST PAPUA

 

Hello friends,

You might have seen some of the shocking reports that have been coming out of West Papua over the last month (in particular the coverage in New Matilda has been excellent http://www.newmatilda.com.au/2011/10/20/troops-open-fire-papuan-gathering ).

Here is a chance to get an update on the situation and some ideas on how you can act in solidarity with the people of West Papua. And a chance to enjoy some West Papuan food, a film and a West Papuan band The Black Orchid String Band.

When: Thursday the 17th November, 6pm
Where: Bella Union Bar, Trades Hall, Carlton, Victoria.

Freedom for West Papua - the latest on the struggle for self determination and human rights.

***BAND ***FOOD***Speakers***FILM***

Speakers from West Papuan community and solidarity activists on:

- the declaration of Independence and announcement of Papuan government leaders at the Third National People's Congress, and the subsequent repression of participants,
-the ongoing strike at the Freeport mine and,
- the East Asian Summit in Bali bringing together regional governments for strategic discussions (incl: Aus, US and China)

Speakers include:

* Welcome by Wurundjeri Traditional Owners.

*Terry Bukorpioper- appointed West Papuan UN representative

*Jacob Rumbiak-Executive President of West Papuan National Council

CHOGM protestors challenge police

Fourth Death in Villawood Immigration Detention Centre

RISE: Refugees, Survivors and Ex-Detainees Media Release

In the early hours of the morning, on Wednesday 26th October 2011, RISE was given the tragic news that “S”, a 27 year old Sri Lankan Tamil refugee from Villawood Immigration Detention centre (IDC) in the suburbs of Sydney, killed himself after drinking poison. 

This day marked 2 years and 24 days of S’s mandatory and indefinite incarceration in Australia’s Immigration detention network.  It also marked “Deepavali” (The Festival of Light) that he, as a Hindu, wished to celebrate at his friend’s house.  The day before Deepavali, S received the news that his application to visit his friend’s house with SERCO escorts had been rejected by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.  SERCO officers had inspected the house sometime back and had indicated to his friend that they were satisfied with the layout of the house.


With limited access to legal and other welfare support services for asylum seekers and refugees this man was among many whose application for refugee status was rejected twice in Christmas island IDC after they arrived by boat to seek asylum.  S was finally accepted in August 2011 as a refugee, after the long struggle to get through the days in a non-transparent, hostile immigration detention environment including witnessing 3 deaths of  fellow detainees who committed suicide in the space of 3 months in Villawood IDC.

All 8 who protested on the roof with “S” were subsequently recognised as refugees, but now, just three have been released with a visa, while the rest are still being held indefinitely in detention.  One of these detainees is undergoing treatment for tuberculosis after repeated requests for medical treatment for more than a year.  All of these detained refugees, including S, applied for community detention.

At the time of his death, S was held in the “housing” area.  This is the same area in which a family (including 3 children) from the boat the Oceanic Viking are being held.  Like S, they too have been detained for more than 2 years.  Refugees with adverse security assessments held in other parts of Villawood IDC were informed on 25th October 2011, that they would be transferred to the housing area.  One of these men, refused to move, with the statement that this was nothing more than “housing arrest” and did nothing to solve the problem of being detained indefinitely without any offer of a durable solution in sight. 
Throughout his time in detention, S had been quite active in asserting his rights and questioning the actions of SERCO and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that had kept him arbitrarily detained and moved haphazardly about Villawood IDC, particularly in the last 12 months of his incarceration. These actions included S's detention in isolation as well as SERCO staff conveniently removing him and the family from the Oceanic Viking from their rooms when the Australian Human Rights Commission came to Villawood IDC to interview detainees in the "housing" area. This latter act was considerably suspect given that these two parties had been in detention much longer than the other detainees in the "housing" area.

Just after he got his refugee status, a RISE advocate took down some notes in the faint hope that S would have his visa and soon be able to access our settlement program.  He had years of work experience in Welding (including Gas cutting and X-ray welding) and had worked in the construction industry. Sadly, S's hope to settle and start a new life in Australia will now never come to pass.

To quote a refugee from Villawood detention centre: “Detention in Australia is like tying a person’s hands and putting food in front of him, which he cannot eat; after some time he loses his appetite and he doesn’t feel like eating it anymore.  That is how we feel about life after we have been in detention.”


--
Regards,
RISE Media Unit
Refugee Survivors and Ex-detainees
247 Flinders Lane, Melbourne, Victoria 3000.
Donate http://www.givenow.com.au/riserefugee
T:(03)9639 8623|M:0430 007 586|F:(03)9650 3689|Email:www.riserefugee.org/

Decolonise Occupy Auckland : Marama speaks for Maori women

Marama Davidson a member of Te Wharepora Hou gave an update on what is  happening at Occupy Auckland on Wednesday Oct 19, 2011 at Aotea Centre.

Occupy Melbourne Arrests showcase Melbourne’s slide into lawlessness

MEDIA RELEASE 24 OCTOBER 2011 Occupy Melbourne Arrests showcase Melbourne’s slide into lawlessness Staff from the Fitzroy Legal Service attended as legal support on Friday 21 October 2011 as the Occupy Melbourne collective were moved on and dispersed by police horses, dogs, and around 200 members of the Victorian Police Force.

Having attended a good many sites in a similar capacity, staff observed the protestors to be remarkably peaceful. Of significance, there were no observations of criminal damage, projectiles, or violent struggle in arrest. This was despite the enormous police presence (which was not far from outnumbering protesters), provocative tactics, extensive injuries, and what seemed to be a complete and utter lack of regard for safety and wellbeing of community members in attendance.

 Meghan Fitzgerald Lawyer at the Fitzroy Legal Service says: “The use of horses to ride directly into the crowd was appalling, and a measure that ordinary people would consider appropriate only in cases of dire emergency and public risk. When you decide to do that serious injuries are almost inevitable, and really call into question the role of the police in serving and protecting the community.

I personally observed a significant number of injuries amongst those arrested, including children. “The central issue is that political demonstration is a democratic right, and should be given significant protection by the State. Justifying this kind of aggressive use of force because of inconvenience or embarrassment is really a sign that we need to have a good look at human rights protection in this State.”

The numbers of people arrested was close to one hundred, with the vast majority released without charge. One of the big questions is how has a local council come to assume such power to silence political speech and demonstration, and who in government or police command authorized the militaristic policing approaches that were engaged? The rule of law and transparency of government action demands clear responses to these and other questions. Meghan Fitzgerald, Lawyer at the Fitzroy Legal Service says, “The people of Melbourne have a right to know who authorized this level of use of force to be unleashed on peaceful civilians. “It is irrelevant whether you agree or disagree with demonstrators.

The real issue is how important is freedom of political speech, and should peaceful demonstrators walk away with serious injuries and/ or in fear and trauma? If anything, these actions will strengthen some of the core messages of the protest, that the decision making of the powerful does not represent the views or interests of the majority of Victorians. Most Victorians believe the right to protest is worth fighting for, and that people gathering peacefully to express their views should not be subject to violence of any kind.”

For further media comment: Meghan Fitzgerald, Fitzroy Legal Service 0450 977 447

"We Called Ourselves the Children of Malcolm"

Te Wharepora Hou call to delay police spy camera bill

Civil liberties form the basis for a working democracy

Search and Surveillance Bill Submission by New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties

Civil liberties form the basis for a working democracy

Far from promoting people’s civil liberties and human rights, the Bill has very few measures to protect those rights, and a large number of measures that can be exploited to infringe those rights, not only of people suspected of committing criminal acts, but also others inadvertently caught up in the activities. Enforcement agencies should be given powers of search, seizure and especially surveillance very sparingly and with limits and safeguards to ensure they are only used for the particular purposes of the agency. The agencies must not be given open powers such as proposed in this legislation. It is the role of parliament to support, promote and protect civil liberties.


Civil liberties form the basis for a working democracy. This Bill constitutes a failure of Parliament to undertake its core function, the protection of the rights of the people it serves. Search and Surveillance Bill 2009 1. Search and Surveillance Bill 2009 There is no denying the need for some clarity and consistency regarding operations and procedures relating to search, seizure and surveillance in New Zealand. In some respects the Search and Surveillance Bill does a good job in making explicit procedures to be followed and parameters of the powers of police and other law enforcement agencies. The Bill gives effect to the Law Commission report, including the extension of the law to meet new electronic communication processes. However the Bill does much more than consider clarity and consistency, or extending to electronic communication the powers in existing law.

It provides police with rights to stop and search vehicles without warrant, to require operators of computers to provide access to all files, it compels people to provide evidence, and permits unwarranted surveillance of businesses and home addresses. The most serious challenge to civil liberties is however that all agencies engaged in enforcement activities will be covered by the same extensive search and surveillance powers as the police and customs. The agencies covered by this include government departments (Department of Labour and Immigration, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries, Department of Social Welfare/WINZ, Customs), Crown entities (Accident Compensation Commission, Civil Aviation Authority), local authorities (Auckland City Council), or other bodies (NZ Food Standards Authority) that employ or engage enforcement officers. This massive extension of the powers of these agencies has been undertaken not because of need but in the name of ‘consistency’. 2. Balancing civil liberties and security In the Law Commission report, and in parliamentary and public discussion on the Bill, there has been much talk of getting the balance right between civil liberties and security. NZCCL submits that in reality this argument is used only when civil liberties are being eroded. Only rarely in New Zealand history has legislation increased people’s civil liberties or reduced the coercive powers of the State.

Over the last few years, in the name of the ‘war against terrorism’ there has been, in New Zealand, as across the industrialised countries, massive increase in the powers of the state to intrude on the rights of people. This Bill, in the name of creating consistency between government agencies, in fact constitutes another step in a major assault on the traditional rights of New Zealanders, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act. It provides a range of law enforcement agencies, and especially the police, with search, seizure and surveillance powers that can be used indiscriminately and with little accountability. 3. The Bill in context The Bill needs to be seen in the context of a plethora of other acts that have been passed during the last few years in the name of ‘the war on terrorism’, including the Terrorism Suppression (Bombings and Finances) Act, the Crimes Amendment Act, the Border Security Act, the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, the Police Act, and many others. The effect of these has been to greatly expand the powers of the police, the SIS and the GCSB to use classified information, to use surveillance, to arrest and detain people under suspicion of terrorism. At the same time the rights of those people to silence and to non-self-incrimination, to access to the information about them, and to legal remedies has been reduced. Some of the legislation has been made exempt from the Bill of Rights Act.

It is clear that similar legislation has been used in other Western countries (including USA, Canada and England) to spy on minority communities and protest groups. There is considerable evidence that that also happens in this country. Recently released information confirms that the SIS has spied on New Zealanders' lawful behaviour and private lives for many decades. We know that different police units have also spied on political activists for many years. The number of units and their surveillance of activist groups and individuals have expanded as the police gained new resources and powers under the ‘anti-terrorism’ laws. Police entities such as the Strategic Intelligence Unit, Threat Assessment Unit and Special Investigation Group feed information into a super-spy group known as the Combined Threat Assessment Group that also includes the SIS, Defence force, GSCB, DPMC. There is no effective public accountability for their activities. Given the blurred boundary line between political activism, criminal offending, threats to security and terrorism, more search and surveillance powers for the police will inevitably feed into this network, and the extension of those powers to other enforcement agencies signals the advent of a society where people can no longer feel themselves safe to express themselves openly.

This Bill, then, is not only a covert and major extension of the powers of surveillance and search to a large number of other government agencies, but is part of a system that has gradually been introduced that suppresses dissent and minority views. 3. The role of government The Bill calls into question the role of a government in a democracy, and the sort of country we would like to see in the future. In the news we see on a day-to-day basis the effects of governments that ally with law enforcement agencies to produce ever more sophisticated processes to combat crime. We know that in those countries with the most oppressive regimes crime has become endemic, and the government uses the measures they have introduced to spy on and oppress dissenting voices and minority groups. In a democracy, it is not the role of the government to ‘balance civil liberties and security’ but to ensure that civil liberties are maintained, even if it may make law enforcement more difficult. Otherwise the government itself becomes oppressive.

The Law Commission report spends considerable time discussing what constitutes ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’. NZCCL considers that this Bill intrudes on the reasonable expectation of privacy as outlined in Section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act : “…to be secure from unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise”. 4. Law by stealth Although it has been sold as a rationalisation of the search, seizure and surveillance powers or a range of existing government agencies (described in up to 50 other pieces of legislation) the Bill in fact increases the power of most of those agencies, to the extent that any of them may use surveillance equipment, seize and copy documents without consent, and require both work and private computer documents to be opened.

The Bill also increases the power of police to conduct car and house searches without warrant, to seize property that may be incidental to a search warrant, and charge people who fail to cooperate. In effect the Bill removes the right of people not to incriminate themselves, by making it a requirement that the operator of a computer open up files to the police. It makes it very easy for all agencies to go on fishing expeditions, and makes it hard for suspects to appeal, because their rights to view evidence against them are diminished. It is the view of NZCCL that changes as substantial as these need to be subject to public debate, instead of being hidden in a complex bill that is promoted as doing administrative tidying up. The Bill challenges the rights and freedoms that are at the heart of our democracy. 5. No case for the increase in powers No strong case has been made, either in the Law Commission report or in the subsequent discussion, for the increase in the powers of the State to search cars and houses without warrant, to seize personal property, to flout laws relating to privilege, to use a range of surveillance measures with little accountability, and to charge people who fail to cooperate.

The argument for increasing such powers has been made in the context of creating consistency between agencies, not based around clear evidence of need. 6. The role of the police The Law Commission report makes various benign statements about the role of the police and other law enforcement agencies: “Law enforcement agencies exist ultimately to protect rather than to control the community” (p.23); “The police and other law enforcement agencies are, after all, meant to be of the people for the people” (p.37). It considers that the police are not opposed to civil liberties but wish to protect them. It is the experience of NZCCL over many years that the police have no regard for civil liberties, and indeed have been the main instigators of the erosion of civil liberties within this country. The police push the boundaries of their power to the limit. It is fatuous to consider that police will use sparingly the powers provided in this Bill, or with regard to the civil liberties of the people who are suspects or caught up in their actions. Yet there is little check in the Bill of the powers of the police.

There are no strong reporting requirements for any of the new powers, and indeed for some of them there are no reporting requirements at all. Thus the police are to a large extent able to be unaccountable and act with impunity. 7. In conclusion It is clear that this Bill attempts to do too much, and so issues of real concern are inadequately addressed. Not only has it the potential to trample on people’s rights, but it may also lead to greater confusion than it is intended to resolve, when a range of enforcement agencies determine to use their new coercive powers. Far from promoting people’s civil liberties and human rights, the Bill has very few measures to protect those rights, and a large number of measures that can be exploited to infringe those rights, not only of people suspected of committing criminal acts, but also others inadvertently caught up in the activities . NZCCL suggests that the Bill be divided into at least two separate Bills, so that the guidelines over the issuing of warrants and other powers, and the reporting of results, are separated from parts considering new powers given to various agencies.

NZCCL considers that enforcement agencies should be given powers of search, seizure and especially surveillance very sparingly and with limits and safeguards to ensure they are only used for the particular purposes of the agency. The agencies must not be given open powers such as proposed in this legislation. Finally, NZCCL considers that it is the role of parliament to support, promote and protect civil liberties. Civil liberties form the basis for a working democracy. This Bill constitutes a failure of Parliament to undertake its core function, the protection of the rights of the people it serves.

Recommendations 1. That the Bill be split into two parts, one considering the procedural, administrative, reporting and accountability requirements pertaining to all search, seizure and surveillance activities carried out by officers of any enforcement agency, and the other relating to the increase in powers of the police, to set up road blocks, to stop and search vehicles, to search without warrant, and other powers. 2. That the part of the Bill relating to all enforcement agencies be restricted to procedural, administrative, reporting and accountability requirements, with the authority for each agency to use the powers to be determined individually on the basis that they should only have the power if there is a strong necessity for it in order to undertake their enforcement activity. 3. That the part of the Bill relating to increase in police powers be subject to further public debate and scrutiny. 4. That a report should be written at the conclusion of ALL search, seizure and surveillance activities, whether or not they are done under warrant or other permission, with that report detailing the purpose, the procedure and the result of the activity. These reports should be subject to external scrutiny, both to determine the effectiveness of the activities and to ensure they are used only where there is a clear purpose that could only be resolved by the use. 5. That clear processes of complaint and redress are included, to ensure that people wrongfully caught up in the search, seizure and surveillance activities have their rights protected

Batch Hales NZCCL Committee 16 September 2009