The Dominion - Australia

Bill C-4's Doubtful and Ineffective Future

Tim McSorley — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:51:28 +0000

Grassroots Australian activist warns against jailing refugees

VANCOUVER—Refugees who flee persecution and look for safety might want to think twice before coming to Canada through smuggling operations—at least that’s the message the Conservative majority government seems to be sending.

The federal parliament is set to pass Bill C-4 (formerly Bill C-49 and commonly known as the “anti-smuggling bill”), which would impose a mandatory one-year detention on any person who arrives in Canada via unconventional means. This could mean imprisonment of men, women and children who, facing desperate situations, failed to apply for and obtain refugee status before escaping their home countries for Canada.

The bill has received little support outside of the Conservative Party. Canada's three other political parties in the House of Commons, as well as human rights advocates and critics, are hoping to fight it off.

The Conservative Party has repeatedly said the bill is meant to protect Canadians and criminalize smugglers and smuggling operations, not to demonize refugees.

Critics of the bill, including Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty International Canada, disagree. Amnesty International says that the bill “will in reality punish people seeking protection in Canada.”

Before the bill comes into effect, concrete evidence is scarce as to whether the proposed legislation would protect or punish refugees.

Australia provides a relevant example. Since 1992, the country has practised mandatory detention of asylum seekers who arrive by unconventional means. In fact, the Canadian government has consulted over the years with Australia to learn from their anti-smuggling legislation. Bill C-4 is modelled loosely on its Australian equivalent.

The Dominion recently spoke to Mark Goudkamp to find out how the Australian legislation is affecting refugees. Goudkamp is the co-founder of Refugee Action Coalition in Australia, a grassroots organization that has campaigned against mandatory detention of refugees since 2000.

Excerpts from the conversation follow:

On how the anti-smuggling policy works in Australia:

“The Australian policy makes it illegal to bring in asylum seekers. It imposes jail sentences of up to ten years for people who organize the trips and it even criminalizes anyone who might spend money to help someone get on the boats. The government uses the rhetoric of human smugglers constantly, without asking the question of who these people being detained are.

“As an example, say there was an Afghan or Tamil family here in our community and they raise money for someone stranded in Malaysia or Indonesia, which is the main transit point for refugees to come to Australia. They spend money on these people so that they can use the money to pay for a smuggler. But then they could also be charged for helping these people, who are desperate.

“Not only that, there are hundreds of Indonesian boat crew members who are offered work as cooks or general hands on these smuggling boats. And they accept those jobs because there’s no more work left in their dying fishing industry. Many of these people are now in maximum-security jails in Australia.”

On whether there’s evidence that mandatory detention in Australia has deterred smuggling operations:

"The argument the government uses is that mandatory detention deters people from getting into boats, which is rubbish. People leave because they're fleeing persecution. And no matter how hard the policy is, they're going to do that.

“In fact, Australia’s human rights commissioner has just condemned one of the detention centres in Western Australia. She said many of the asylum seekers are dying from the inside out. She released a report talking about the number of self-harm incidents, suicide attempts and hunger strikes in the centre. She was basically trying to say that the mandatory detention centre isn’t deterring people from seeking asylum, but is harming them.

“There are also increasing mainstream voices, like the Australian Medical Association, that have come out against mandatory detention. Even the head of immigration, who has been a supporter of government policy historically, just a few weeks ago raised the question as to whether mandatory detention was working from the government’s perspective.”

On the lives of refugees who live in Australian detention centres:

“They can watch TV and access the internet, but they can’t go outside when they want. They can’t shop. They can’t contact people. They can’t go and get jobs or use the skills they have. They can’t gain new skills. They can’t send money back to their families at home. They know the Australian community sees them as a drain on society’s resources, and this kills their soul.

“The actual physical conditions, well, it’s not like a slum that’s infested with cockroaches and rats, it’s not. But it’s more the psychological impact of being in there that’s harmful.

“I mean, there are now 872 children in detention as of July 31; those are the most recent statistics. I saw a couple of kids at my last visit to a detention centre, and one of them was a seven-year-old girl. During the school year, she goes to an immigrant primary school everyday and comes back to the centre everyday. But besides that, she and others can’t come and go as they please. Now that the school holiday has started, she was asking her mother, 'Mom, why can’t we got out and go do this? Are we bad people?'

“So, you know, people shouldn't be in that situation. Not to mention that she also has a one-year-old brother who was born in the detention centre. Sadly, their parents recently received a negative security assessment from the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and can’t be accepted into the country for reasons unknown to the family or me. But the irony is that they did receive refugee status from immigration officials, which says they face persecution at home. So, since they can’t go home, they’re left with two choices: 1) find a third country to go to; or 2) stay in detention forever.

“Unless our campaign can overthrow these policies and get a more humanitarian perspective, they're going to be condemned for many, many years in this situation.

“Every individual story is moving. Once people hear the stories of these humans who the government tries to demonize, well, it becomes a lot harder for them to believe all the government’s bullshit.”

On why mandatory detention still exists in Australia:

“I actually think that the policy of mandatory detention is just as much about a feeling of insecurity and hysteria in the general Australian population, as it is about punishing foreigners. If people are jailed like this, it sends a message to the public that: a) they’re undesirable; b) they’ve done something wrong; and c) they can be used to divert people’s anger against things happening in Australian society, such as cuts to working conditions and cuts to public services, and so people have a useful scapegoat and a useful target for their anger and their grieving for why their lives are shit.”

On the Canadian government’s choice of Australia as a role model:

"Word of warning for the Canadian government. No policy, no matter how harsh, is going to stop people fleeing persecution from trying to seek asylum—all it does is create animosity in society and create more distress for people already traumatized.

“Refugees could be aware that there’s a detention system in Australia, and they know it’s not going to be nice. But that concern is far outweighed by the need to get into a country that’s a signatory of the Refugee Convention. The short-term pain of being on a boat where you risk your life, and to spend a year or two in detention, is far preferable to rotting in a country, being absolutely terrified in their country of origin, being killed, and having absolutely zero prospect of a future for you and your family.”

Stephanie Law is a journalist based in Vancouver, unceded Coast Salish Territories. Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca.

Freedom for Migrants

Global Day of Action Against Open-Pit Mining: DEFENDING THE SACRED WIRADJURI HEARTLAND ["AUSTRALIA"]

Sandra — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:55:35 +0000

IMG_1418.JPG

[Indigenous Ipili human rights activist Jethro Tulin and traditional landowner Mark Ekepa from Papua New Guinea listen to NEVILLE "CHAPPY" WILLIAMS denounce Barrick Gold mine in sacred heartland of Wiradjuri People. PHOTO: Sandra Cuffe, 2008.]
***********************************************

RE-POSTING EXCERPT FROM 'MOTHER AFRICA' BLOG - http://justiceinunjustworld.blogspot.com/ - BY AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS & SOCIAL JUSTICE ACTIVIST EVANS RUBERA, OUTSPOKEN CRITIC OF BARRICK GOLD MINING IN AFRICA:

[...]

Neville Chappy Williams, who has consistently opposed the open-pit mine at Lake Cowal in the middle of the Murray-Darling Basin, has delivered documents to the Deputy Canadian High Commissioner, Mr René Cremonese, and the Minerals Council of Australia in Canberra as part of the Global Day of Action against open-pit mining.

Neville Chappy Williams is a Traditional Owner of Lake Cowal and has fought many court cases against mining at Lake Cowal.

“It is my sacred duty to protect Lake Cowal and our ancient cultural heritage. We will never give up. I will fight to the bitter end.” Currently, he has halted the proposed expansion of the gold mine in Barrick v Williams in the NSW Court of Appeal.

“The Lake Cowal gold mine operated by Barrick Gold from Toronto, Canada is desecrating our sacred heartland of the Wiradjuri between the Kalara/Lachlan and the Murrumbidgee rivers in central west New South Wales."

[...]

Blows to Barrick

dawn — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:00:00 +0000

Back-to-back setbacks scuff gold miner's shine

"There is no business today of any scope, of any size, in a civilized society that can make false claims without being exposed to penalties."
–Peter Munk, Chairman and Founder, Barrick Gold

Norway's Ministry of Finance announced on January 30 that it would exclude mining giant Barrick Gold from the country's pension fund for ethical reasons. One week later, another blow to Barrick, this time in Australia, occurred when a judge ruled in favor of Wiradjuri Traditional Owner Neville "Chappy" Williams, granting an injunction restraining the proposed expansion of Barrick Gold's mine in Lake Cowal, New South Wales. More significant than the $200 million divestment or the delay in Lake Cowal mine's expansion, is the insight into Barrick's behavior that these rulings expose.

While the Norwegian Council of Ethics full recommendation mentions conflicts involving Barrick in Chile, Tanzania, and the Philippines, the panel acknowledged that, "due to limited resources," it restricted its investigation of Barrick to the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea. The Porgera mine has been a prime target for criticism because Barrick dumps its mine waste directly into the river system, a practice banned in almost every country in the world.

Barrick boasts in its Porgera Mine Responsibility Report that its "environmental specialists routinely monitor the land, air and water," claiming that environmental performance data tables are available on its website.

Norway's Council on Ethics found – after multiple requests – that Barrick "does not publish any figures relating to the discharges from the Porgera mine and provides little information in general on the environmental aspects of the operation."

Thus, relying on data from 1999, instead of discrediting Barrick's claims that it "follows a government-approved environmental management and monitoring program," the Council criticized the standards of that program and noted that there is only one compliance point – 165 km downstream from the mine.

The Council also found Barrick's claim that "there are no irreversible significant and adverse chemical impacts on this river system" was not credible, noting that "all surveys [that the Council] has had access to show an unambiguous trend of elevated heavy metal concentrations in the sediments."

Barrick asserts that "health risk assessments and medical assessments of downriver populations have been conducted and interim reports are posted from time to time. [Barrick does] not believe that there is evidence of health risks to the downstream populations."

Not only was the Council unable to find any scientific reports on human health since Barrick started to manage the mine, but through its own investigations of the mine site, the Council found that those living near the site were in direct contact with mine waste: through footpaths, gardens, alluvial mining, and water collection facilities.

In addition, the Council noted that local residents themselves have "no access to information regarding the content of hazardous substances in the tailings, air emissions and air quality, or the quality of the drinking water."

"Barrick's operation of the Porgera mine entails an unacceptable risk of extensive and irreversible damage to the natural environment... reinforced by the lack of openness and transparency in the company's environmental reporting," reads the Council's final report.

"It's unbelievably embarrassing," admits Canada's Green Party deputy leader Adriane Carr. "It's got to be bad news for Canada when a foreign government says it's going to sell its shares in a Canadian company they figure is unethical."

All the more embarrassing is that Barrick's chairman Peter Munk recently received the Order of Canada, Canada's highest civilian honor.

Within a few weeks of Norway’s announcement, the Porgera MP Phillip Kikala made calls to impose a state of emergency in Porgera, motivated by situation reports presented to him by Barrick (PNG) Limited. The National Executive Council has now made a call-out for a combined defense force and police operation in Porgera including five mobile forces and one platoon at a cost of 12 million PNG Kina.

According to ABC Australia, “Armed men have been holding up trucks carrying supplies for the mine and businesses in Porgera.” But Jethro Tulin of Porgera Alliance, a coalition of landowners and human rights defenders, believes the real lawlessness is reflected in the environmental and human rights abuses committed by Barrick. In a press statement he demands the PNG government and Barrick “immediately start to address the catastrophic problem pro-actively rather than over-reacting with high level security installations and branding it as a law-and-order problem... Ordinary people are already victims of what has gone wrong.”

A week following Norway's divestment, Barrick had another setback when the proposed expansion of their Lake Cowal mine was turned down in New South Wales' Land and Environment Court.

Barrick spokesman Bill Shallvey said that the company would appeal the decision, adding that the company had taken the appropriate avenues to seek approval to modify the gold mine.

History reveals a different story.

This is the third injunction that Wiradjuri Elder Neville "Chappy" Williams has won against Barrick Gold. Before Barrick constructed the mine, Williams won an injunction on the grounds that the Wiradjuri relics were being damaged without any "Consent to Destroy."

The latest injunction is a small victory in relation to the larger struggle for Native Title recognition in the Lake Cowal Area.

Williams, who applied for this and previous injunctions, is also the spokesperson for the Mooka/Kalara United Families claim group, which represents over 3,000 Wiradjuri people.

Since 2002, they have been fighting the New South Wales government over the native title to the Lake Cowal area, where Barrick is mining an ancient ephemeral lake and Wiradjuri sacred site.

"Barrick negotiated in secret with five unauthorized Wiradjuri," Williams explained to a roomful of shareholders at Barrick's Annual General Meeting last year.

"Barrick claims a good record in negotiating with Wiradjuri, but this is not true and the main negotiator, Percy Knight, was on a suspended sentence for fraud when he signed the deal. Now, the entire Wiradjuri nation is supposedly bound to this agreement but no one else can see it, even though we have tried to get a copy under Freedom of Information."

The group that Barrick had negotiated with, the "Wiradjuri Condobolin Native Title Claim Group" (later renamed "The Wiradjuri People") received an undisclosed amount of financial compensation for giving their consent to mine the area. This gives all new meaning to Percy Knight's statement that "the Wiradjuri people and Barrick enjoy "a mutually beneficial relationship."

Neville has made several attempts to get a copy of the ancillary deed and other documents like a full inventory of artefacts collected at Lake Cowal, but Barrick claims that the deed is "Commercial-in-Confidence."

The "Wiradjuri People" have since discontinued their title claim to Lake Cowal, leaving Chappy's group as the sole native title claimant to the Lake Cowal area.

"They couldn't prove their connection to the land, so they just took the money and ran," explained Williams when asked about why the "Wiradjuri People" discontinued their land claim.

"They claim to be Wiradjuri elders, but they signed a consent to destroy Aboriginal objects. How could they do that? They are really just sellouts who have signed away our ancient cultural heritage."

Under duress, the Mooka and Kalara United Families group will present an anthropological report in March and make a case for their Native Title claim. The Federal court will give further directions on the Title Claim case in May.

If successful, there is still a worry that the traditional owners will be unable to stop Barrick's mine on their land, which was once used for ceremonies and known as the "Sacred Heartland of the Wiradjuri Nation."

According to Australia's Native Title Act, when conflicts arise over land use, traditional owners have no right to a veto, they can only negotiate on how to say yes.

"If the traditional owners refuse to say yes, the matter goes to arbitration and the government can override it in 'the national interest.'" The Native Title Act has been condemned by the United Nations multiple times as a racist law.

Even given these difficult circumstances, the group remains hopeful. "We have to fight for every inch that we get; we've been in the court for 10 years and are very pleased with the result of this court case," Williams admitted of the Mooka/Kalara group's long struggle to save the Lake Cowal area. "But we will fight to the bitter end to protect and preserve our cultural heritage."

Sakura Saunders is an editor for protestbarrick.net, an all-volunteer news site that networks organizations and community groups organized against Barrick Gold around the world.

Glossing over the Truth

Australia attacked over cruise missiles

Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:01:36 +0000

A massive explosion outside of the Australian embassy in Jakarta is said to be in reaction to Australia's consideration of purchasing air-launched cruise missiles for its fighter jets. The missiles, which were denounced by the Indonesian Foreign Affairs Department, could reach over 400km, making Australia the most dominant air power in the Asia-Pacific region. The Indonesian government has stated, "We question the wisdom of this latest decision, which may not be construed by some countries as defensive," and noted that, "there is a risk that raising the level of sophistication [of weaponry] could lead to some kind of counter response."

Observers worry that the bombing, coming amidst a parliamentary election campaign in Australia, could unduly influence the country's foreign policy for the next five years if it is seized upon by opposition parties. The Australian government insists that the missile purchase is not intended for use against countries in the region but is part of a broader plan to build a military that can assist in international operations.

» Sydney Morning Herald: Australia risking arms race: Indonesia

» The Age: Eleven killed in embassy bombing

» XinhuaNet: Embassy bombing in Jakarta condemned

Democracy and Fascism

Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:29:19 +0000

<cite>Myth, Propaganda and Disaster</cite> provokes controversy in Australia

The burning of the Reichstag by terrorists allowed Hitler to sieze power. Myth questions similar themes in contemporary America from an Australian perspective.

Myth, Propaganda and Disaster in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America: A Drama in 30 Scenes made headlines because each of the major theatres in Sydney failed to pick it up for 2004, even though it completed successful runs at both The Playbox Theatre in Melbourne and The State Theatre Company in Adelaide. Australian playwright Stephen Sewell only increased debate on the issue by claiming that he was 'being blocked from the main stages here in Sydney.' He said, 'I am being blocked, have been for some time, because I don't fit into their agendas, which is to reinforce their audience's beliefs.' Myth was finally brought to Sydney audiences during a three-week run at The Stables on a voluntary, co-operative basis by cast and management.

So, why all the controversy?

The main character in Myth is Talbot Finch, an Australian expat living in America. As Max, a fellow Australian tells us, Talbot's life is good. He has a cushy academic job in the politics department of a prestigious American university, an American wife who married him so that he could stay in America and a beautiful apartment that offers a clear view of the site of the former World Trade Centre. It's a life that Max envies and wants.

Talbot, however, is less than satisfied. He has written a book, which lends its title to the title of the play, and seems almost unaware that his argument outlines the evolution of contemporary America into a fascist state similar to Nazi Germany. Talbot, in fact, seems unaware that he is living in a post Sept-11 world, and that words are no longer innocent – a point that is driven home to him when a stranger enters his office, threatens him with a gun and bashes him in the head. This incident sets Talbot down a spiraling path of paranoia, conspiracy and fear.

Myth aims to explore both the environment within America and the relationship between America and Australia post Sept-11. The character of Max encapsulates Australia's subordinate role – easy-going, careful to say the right things, eager to learn the American way. The stranger who continues to harass Talbot is almost supernatural – he is a government agent never seen by other characters, so elusive that he could almost be a figment of Talbot's imagination. Talbot himself is an idealist whose beliefs in social justice have become a threat, to himself most of all.

Parallels are drawn early in the play between Talbot's situation and that of Joseph K. in The Trial. Like Joseph K, Talbot doesn't understand what his crime is. He is incapable of seeing the practical implications of his theories, nor can he see how dangerous other people find the truth.

Once he recognizes that he is being persecuted, he finds that other people have the same reluctance to believe that they live in a world that continues to resemble a fascist state. When he tries to tell his wife that somebody is trying to silence him she dismisses this notion saying, 'This is America!'. The implication being, of course, that things like that just don't happen in America.

Is it true that Sydney theatre companies were simply too scared to bring this play to Sydney audiences? Is it a reflection, perhaps, on the extreme conservatism and reluctance to face up to harsh realities that this very play attacks?

The artistic directors of major Sydney theatres have denied Sewell's charges that Myth was deemed too contentious for the Sydney stage. And, while Myth does succeed in raising important issues about the willingness of the public of both Australia and America to accept that their countries are the defenders of freedom ad democracy, it is possible to see why all the major theatres declined to include it in their 2004 programs.

While the first half of Myth is an exciting mix of social commentary and interesting suspense, the second half descends into a series of monotonous rants that take on the one-sided and dogmatic appearance of another form of propaganda. Myth played to sell-out audiences at The Stables. It is hard to tell whether it would have been as successful during a longer run in a larger theatre, without the controversy surrounding its performance.

Lynda Ng is currently studying at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

Myth, Propaganda and Disaster provokes controversy in Australia
Myth, Propaganda and Disaster in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America: A Drama in 30 Scenes made headlines because each of the major theatres in Sydney failed to pick it up for 2004, even though it completed successful runs at both The Playbox Theatre in Melbourne and The State Theatre Company in Adelaide.
- by Lynda Ng -