Category: Politics

1000 motorbikes burbled into Brisbane CBD today to give Premier Newman pause over the recent ‘bikie’ legislation.  Another 4000 or so people joined the riders in front of state parliament to let it be known that Queenslanders do not support the VLAD act and other incursions into rights of association.

Police set aside areas on Alice Street for motorbike parking, but these areas quickly overflowed and police were run ragged ensuring bikers were able to park safely.

The rally was positioned as non-partisan, though this didn’t stop organiser Gabriel Buckley of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) from using the opportunity to remind people of his nomination for the seat of Redcliffe. The former seat of disgraced LNP politician Scott Driscoll, Redcliffe will be contested in a by-election in February.

Gabriel Buckley runs on a Libertarian platform.

Along with the announcement about Buckley’s candidacy, and presence of the flag of the LDP, the rally also drew speaker David Leyonhjelm, NSW Senator-elect.  Leyonhjelm spoke about how the VLAD laws and associated legislation creates a “moral panic” in the public mind about motorbike riders.  Leyonhjelm finished his talk by saying:

“And they wonder why nobody comes to the aid of police when they are in trouble.

“I’m never going to help someone who thinks it’s ok to pull me up, search me and threaten me with jail if I don’t answer their questions merely because  am riding my motorcycle in company with a couple of other people.  If that’s what they think, they can lie on the side of the road and bleed to death.”

While the crowd had generally been positive about the talk, at this point cheering was more subdued as people tried to decide if it was appropriate to applause such a statement.

Other speakers were passionate and rousing but stopped short of wishing death on police.

Speakers included amongst others Queensland Council for Civil Liberties spokesman Michael Cope, and Electrical Trades Union spokesman Peter Simpson, who both spoke about how the legislation was not solely directed at outlaw bike clubs and how the laws will impact on civil rights.  The wife of prisoner Kevin, an ex-bikie and model prisoner now on 23 hour lockdown, spoke about her husband’s situation. Anonymous also fielded a speaker, and were present in force in the crowd.

Being the biggest rally seen at parliament house in recent times, bigger even than the very successful Rally for Rights held on the 19th of November, it is fair to say that Queensland politicians may be starting to wonder if they have woken a sleeping dragon.

Freedom Ride

Freedom Ride

Freedom Ride

Freedom Ride

Freedom Ride

Freedom Ride

Freedom Ride

Freedom Ride

Freedom Ride

December 1, 2013

Media Release

G20 Dissenters form Action Network

As Australia assumes the G20 presidency prior to the summit in November next year, concerned community members announce the formation of the Brisbane Community Action Network G20 (BrisCAN-G20).

The network has formed to facilitate community responses and raise the profile of dissent to the G20 summit. BrisCAN-G20 will foster collaborations between community groups, support community action and provide commentary and critique of the G20 and Australia’s role in it.

The network has developed out of shared concerns about the G20’s perpetuation of an abusive economic system. The Group of 20 summit outcomes privilege the wealthy over the majority, have disregard for the environment and human rights, and lack transparency and public participation. Furthermore, The Group of 20 is involved in the erosion of civil liberties as a mechanism of control and fails to provide meaningful, sustainable and just community focused solutions to global crises and conflict.

Kim Stewart from Friends of the Earth Brisbane said “While the coming together of nations could be an opportunity to promote peace, social justice and ecological sustainability, the G20 is perpetuating financial and economic system that is failing the majority of the world and destroying the planet.”

Benjamin Pennings from Generation Alpha said “It is time for Australia and the G20 to re-think our economic system and make decisions that protect the earth – our shared habitat – and deliver a just and sustainable future for our children. The G20 do not act for global good. They should not be making decisions for us.”

For more information on BrisCAN-G20 or media comment please contact:

Kim Stewart, Friends of the Earth Brisbane – 0413 397 839
Benjamin Pennings, Generation Alpha – 0418 164 014.

MEDIA RELEASE * MEDIA RELEASE * MEDIA RELEASE * MEDIA RELEASE * MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release, 30 November 2013

Citizens network forms to fight civil liberties “crackdown”

A packed meeting of more than 70 concerned citizens and representatives from community organisations founded a new campaigning organisation at Brisbane’s Electrical Trades Union hall on Wednesday night, responding to what organisers called “an unprecedented crackdown on civil liberties in Queensland”.

The Queensland Civil Liberties Network was born amid cheers from meeting participants who set about planning a series of protest actions over coming months, including a rally and march to fall on Parliament’s first sitting day, February 11 2014.

Brisbane alternative media publisher Max Riethmuller said the Newman government had created a climate in which people now feared gathering in public.

“I have already seen people choose not to attend a protest out of fear of the VLAD act,” Mr Riethmuller said.

“The slow usurping of rights in this state has potential to strip us of very important basic rights,” he said.

Mr Riethmuller said that by positioning this legislation as being about ‘bikies’ or ‘parties’ the government was engaging in “subterfuge”.

The meeting also endorsed the actions of the Queensland Council of Unions, Brisbane Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy and other organisations in relation to the UN Human Rights Day on 10th of December, and the upcoming Anti-VLAD Freedom Ride on December 1st.

“The Queensland government is contravening various articles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly in regard to the right to free speech and the right to freedom of association,” said Mr Riethmuller

Meeting organiser Ewan Saunders attacked the recent “Out-of-control Parties” legislation as “absurd”.

“Next will it be people only inviting 11 people to their backyard BBQ’s to avoid the chance of being thrown in jail for a year?” Mr Saunders asked.

“When ordinary law abiding people have to closely watch their movements to avoid getting in trouble with the law, we are basically living in a police state,” he said.

“My hope is that this network can help build effective and broad-based opposition to these laws.”

For media comment, contact:

Ewan Saunders: 0401 234 610
Max Riethmuller: 0415 200 577

Visit the campaign Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/civillibertiesqld

Latifa and and family went back to court today to find out whether the attempt to block their transfer back to Nauru was successful.

Latifa gave premature birth to a son Ferouz, at the Mater Hospital on the 6th of December.  Since then she has had the threat of being transferred to Nauru with her family and new born son into conditions unsuitable for the care of an infant.

The case is still unresolved, but Latifa’s lawyers secured a commitment from the Department of Immigration to not move Latifa without notice.

Murray Watt of Maurice Blackburn gave a statement outside the court today:

Over the last 24 hours we have had a series of negotiations with the department and their advisers, and the government has made a commitment that before any decisions are made to move this family to Nauru, they will provide them with a fair hearing about their health issue, and about the rights of Ferouz having been born in Australia.

He went on to say:

The department has also provided a commitment that the family will be provided two days notice before any removal to Nauru. That is a really good outcome for this family, only one week ago we were in court because the family was subject to removal at any time, without any notice, and without any opportunity to provide medical information, and today we have managed to secure commitments from the government that they will get a fair hearing before any decision is made to take them to Nauru.

Mr Watt used the opportunity to remind the government of it’s obligations under international treaties.

The family is very happy with that outcome, and as I say it is a good outcome for this particular family, but having achieved a win for this particular family I think we have all got to reflect on the entire practice of detaining small children and families offshore in conditions that only this week the UN has reported are inhumane. I think we can do better than that as Australians, we have international obligations that require us to do better than that, and I now call on the minister and the entire Australian community to think about this is the kind of conditions that we think are acceptable for very small children and their families.

Mr Watt went on to explain that the government had every intention of sending Latifa and her family to Nauru once their health allowed them to be transferred safely  In the coming weeks the law firm will present evidence to show why this was not an appropriate course of action.

The fact that Latifa was able to achieve a stay on her transfer to Nauru while her lawyers prepare her case will enable other asylum seekers to benefit also.  This case will likely form a test case for other similar cases of detention on Australian soil and may set a precedent that will allow families to remain in Australia when the only alternative is to send families and their young children to the unsuitable conditions that exist at Nauru.

Family and Newborn of Asylum Seeker Latifar

Latifa, her husband Niza, their 7 year-old daughter Habiba, four year-old son, Muddin and baby Ferouz at BITA, Pinkenba

Today Asylum Seeker Latifa and family went to the Federal Circuit Court to seek an injunction against being sent to Nauru.

After being transferred from Nauru to give birth to her son Ferouz, born at Mater Brisbane Hospital on November 6, Latifa and her family now face being sent back to Nauru.   The family are currently being held at the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation (BITA) centre.  She was initially only able to visit her son between 10am and 4pm, but now mother and son are together permanently.

Refugee advocates claim that the facilities at Nauru are inappropriate for providing care to a new born. Advocates from Refugee Action Collective are assisting Latifa launch the legal challenge against being sent back to Nauru.

Protesters gathered today outside the Federal Circuit Court to show support for Latifa and her family.

I spoke to one of the supporters, Bradley, who attended the court hearing:

“I went and sat in the open court and heard the Lawyers for the Government basically trying to say the injunction against removal of Latifa and Ferouz doesn’t apply as there is no set date for removal and it is presumed they will be removed. The argument was that the current court it is held in doesn’t have jurisdiction to make a decision one way or another. They say it should be dealt with in the high court. Latifa’s lawyers I heard out of the courtroom say the case is unique in that Latifa come from a place which is deemed stateless. Since Ferouz was born on Australian soil he should be entitled to a protection visa and not be able to be legally deported. The case was adjourned till Fri at 3pm so the judge could read over several acts that the lawyers for the Government were quoting from. It would seem the most concern is that they will be taken removed from Australia before the case is even heard.”

Other asylum seekers with young children, and disabled asylum seekers, currently detained on mainland Australia who also face being sent to Nauru, may benefit from any decision that may arise out of this action.

Protesters gather outside the federal court to support Latifar, new born son and family's request for an injunction against being returned to Nauru

Protesters gather outside the federal court to support Latifa, new born son and family’s request for an injunction against being returned to Nauru

MEDIA ALERT

EMBARGOED 6:00AM | Friday 22 November 2013

Malaysians to Occupy Lynas HQ in Sydney:
Protest shareholder meeting, divest from Lynas

WHAT
SYDNEY | Eight representatives from Himpunan Hijau, one of the largest environmental movements in Malaysia, will be travelling to Australia to protest against Australian rare earth mining company, Lynas Corporation. Lynas has started exporting its toxic and radioactive rare-earth pollution to it’s controversial refinery, the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) in Kuantan, Malaysia.

Himpunan Hijau will be joined by Friends of the Earth Australia, Beyond Nuclear Initiative, AidWatch and The Greens.


WHERE & WHEN

Occupation outside Lynas Headquarters
ALL DAY Tuesday 26 – Thursday 28 November 2013
56 Pitt Street, Sydney

Press conference hosted by The Greens
Thursday 28 November 2013
10AM behind NSW parliament

Protest outside Lynas Corporation Annual General Meeting
Friday 29 November
8:30AM-1:00PM
Opposite Establishment Hotel,
252 George Street Sydney

BACKGROUND
On August 4th 2011 Australian company Lynas Corporation officially opened its Mt Weldrare earth mine in Western Australia. Lynas has started exporting rare earth concentrates, through the port of Fremantle in Western Australia to the port of Kuantan in Malaysia, to their polluting, energy intensive and highly controversial rare earths processing plant, the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP).

The LAMP is vehemently opposed by at least a million Malaysians. It was constructed without any public consultation and near fishing communities. Its pollution and waste management are seriously deficient according to a scientific report[1] by Germany’s Oeko Institute.

More info and for interviews with Himpunan Hijau representatives contact:
Tully Mcintyre,
Coordinator, StopLynas.org
An affiliate campaign of Friends of the Earth Australia
tully.mcintyre@foe.org.au
0410 388 187

[1] “Description and Critical environmental Evaluation of the Rare Earth Refinery Plant LAMP near Kuantan/Malaysia” http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1629/2013-002-en.pdf

*Note: Press Releases are authored by contributing organisation.

Million Mask March Brisbane

Brisbane anonymous groups today (5 November 2013) converged on Brisbane CBD in support of Anonymous and the international November 5 Million Mask March.  The march proceeded from Emma Miller Place and traced a circle around the CBD before returning to King George Square for speeches.

In a turnout that surprised some and sent a clear message to Premier Newman that there is ample support for Anonymous in Brisbane, well over 300 people marched the streets drawing looks of curiosity and interest.  The protesters sported masks and other costumes, including many a black suited and mask wearing “Anonymous agent”.

Apart from general support for Anonymous, many participants question Newman’s recent ‘bikie’ laws and chanted anti-corporate greed slogans.

See here for pictures

Million Mask March Brisbane 2013

Gypsy Joker Protest Run SA Anti-Association Laws

Gypsy Joker Protest Run SA Anti-Association Laws
By Roy Lister from Salisbury North, South Australia (Gypsy Joker Protest Run) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Just recently the government passed the The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013.  There are some misunderstandings relating to the scope of this Act, the primary one being the misperception that the Act targets bikies specifically.  There is a separate piece of legislation, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, that deals with proscribed clubs and the offences of members of proscribed clubs not being allowed to meet in groups larger than three.

(A list of proscribed clubs is available in Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013)

You don’t have to be a member of a proscribed club to be prosecuted under the VLAD laws.

Here is a scary example: one of the declared offences is “receive tainted property”. Say you are the member of a camera club and you purchase a camera off another member that turns out to be stolen and the police charge you with receipt of stolen goods. Unless you can prove that it is not a standard practice of the club to deal in stolen property, you are a Vicious Lawless Associate. The burden of proof is on the accused. You are guilty until proven innocent. If you cannot prove the club does not have as one of it’s purposes the trade in stolen items, the magistrate will be required to sentence you to 15 years in jail (25 years if you hold an office bearing position in the club). The magistrate has no choice in this; the prescribed sentences are mandatory.

Your only real hope is that you can prove through a lack of history of offences involving the club that your claim that the club’s purpose does not involve trading stolen goods is accepted, but the potential for abuse of this by police intent on getting “results” is high. When the burden of proof is on the accused, you rely on the good will of the accuser, which is a dangerous thing in the hands of police. It minimises accountability.

Another example: Marijuana is considered a ‘Dangerous Drug’ under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986.  Under the VLAD Act, a Declared Offence includes Possession of a Dangerous Drug.  For the purposes of the VLAD Act, an Association is defined as a corporation, an incorporated association, a club or league, or “any other group of 3 or more persons by whatever name called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal.”

In other words, if three people or more are arrested by the police in the process of sharing a ‘joint’, and the police decide to call the group an association, the person in possession of the marijuana will have to prove to a court that possessing or dealing in marijuana was not an activity of the association.  It is clear that if three people were involved in a murder, that they were a Vicious Lawless Association and the maximum jail term of 15 years on top of whatever sentence they receive for the actual murder or attempted murder wouldn’t seem quite so unfair.  But under the VLAD Act there is no differentiation in sentencing.  Even if the normal sentence for possession of marijuana is a stiff fine, the court is required to sentence the possessor of the marijuana to 15 years, UNLESS they can prove the possession of the marijuana was not an intended activity of the ‘association’.

In cases such as “Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle” (a declared offence) some people would be inclined to say “they deserve to go to jail”.  Some might even say that a young car club member at a Show n Shine doing a burnout (“Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle”) deserves to go to jail for 15 years, though I suggest that most would see that as far too harsh.  Likewise, does someone really deserve to go to jail for smoking a joint with friends?

It may not often come to this, but past experience has shown that when police are given such overarching powers, they tend to use them.  Even a few such miscarriages of justice would be too many.

Even in a case where an actual bikie or criminal is being charged with a declared offence, do they really deserve to have 15-25 years tapped on top of the sentence they receive for the actual criminal act? Do we trust over-zealous police to recognise when a bikie has committed an act that is not part of his or her club’s purpose?  Is a bikie acting alone more culpable than any other criminal acting alone?  Or do people at large really believe that organised criminals or no longer entitled to the same due process that the rest of us are entitled to?  And do they sit in their ivory towers (sic) believing that because they don’t smoke dope, don’t do burn outs, are never likely to commit any of the offences on the declared offences list (and many are admittedly horrific offences that committers wouldn’t obtain much sympathy for) that they can sit back self-righteously and ignore the potential abuse of process that this legislation invites?

This kind of “it’s okay, because they are bad people” legislation is a slippery slope.  Once it’s okay to treat ‘associates’ more harshly than individuals, it takes very little for the government to expand the meaning of ‘association’ and ‘declared offences’. The police service will be aching at the bit to use these powers to rein in criminal activity that is not gang related (such as low level drug dealing).  The government will be eager to expand the list of declared offences to deal with activity they deem politically unsavoury.  How soon before protest groups are targeted, or unions?

The legislation is a minefield and is not targeted at bikies alone but any group that the government or police arbitrarily decide is a threat to law and order.

Read the Bill here: The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013

Guest Lawyers analysis: Are You A Vicious Lawless Associate?

Legal Aid QLD: Drug Offences

Supporting notes for the VLAD Bill

Shorten Wins Leadership Of Labor Party

Bill Shorten

Bill Shorten. Photo by Peter Cambell

Bill Shorten has won the position as Labor Party leader with 63.95% of the caucus vote and 40.08 of the member vote. Shorten has called this a win for democracy and has proclaimed the process a success.  Well he may.  With 74% Labor member turnout, a high voting rate, still the caucus has managed to protect itself from the will of the membership.

If the membership is allowed to vote, indicating that they are to be trusted with choosing an appropriate leader, why does a caucus member’s vote count for more than a rank and file member?  Granted the system is better than that which existed before, for which we have Rudd to thank.  For whatever other failures he is guilty of, Rudd clearly saw the need to reinvent the democratic processes of the party.  But are the changes enough?  Since the leadership campaign was announced 4500 people have said they want to join the Labor Party.  How many of those will change their minds now, disillusioned by the failure of the new democratic processes to secure a member approved leader?

Shorten claims the process has “made the ALP more transparent and open”.  This is hard to accept when you look at Shorten’s track history of manipulations from the sidelines.  Now that he is leader, can we be sure that he will suddenly be transparent?  From outside appearances, and to many of the disaffected Labor voters, the old guard right faction is still very much entrenched.

In fairness to Shorten, his choice of Tanya Plibersek is likely to have assisted his campaign.  While Albanese indicated he would support Shorten for Deputy if he won, Shorten indicated he would choose Plibersek as Deputy, which would have gained him some traction from the left and from affirmative action advocates.  Indeed many hoped to see Plibersek herself vie for leadership, including former Prime Minister and leader Julia Gillard who described her as one of the nation’s most gifted communicators.

It is now up to the caucus (and not the membership) to ensure Plibersek is elected Deputy.