Monthly Archives: November 2013

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

The Australian government looks set to approve GMO Cholera vaccine trials on volunteers in Australia.

The cholera virus in the vaccine has been genetically modified to prevent it from damaging blood cells in the recipient, but still provide the immune response needed to develop immunity.

An initial concern has been whether the vaccine is being tested wholesale on cholera prone Indigenous communities – thus using them as guinea pigs. It doesn’t appear that that is the case. The vaccine is to be given to healthy volunteers (1000 participants) in drink form, and will not be sprayed or injected.

Testing areas throughout Australia include Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria.  In Australia, parts of Northern Australia are prone to cholera outbreaks, due to the wet and humid environment.  However the point of testing in Australia and not in countries with more of a cholera problem is due to the low communal immunity to cholera in Australia.  Any immunity that is developed in trial participants can then be attributed to the vaccine.  This is even more evidence that the vaccine is not being tested on ‘Guinea Pigs’ in cholera prone areas, since efficacy would be difficult to gauge.

From The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator:

“This vaccine will not be sprayed into the environment;
It will be given as a drink to the volunteers willing to participate in the trial;
No decision has been made on the licence application;
Public comments on the risk assessment and risk management plan will be sought in late January 2014”

Office of the Gene Technology Regulator

The vaccine has been on the market before as Orochol, manufactured using the same process, but with different facilities – which therefore requires re-testing to ensure the new version retains the same safety profile as the previous.  Orochol has been used around the world and is tested and well tolerated and safe. The GM method used for this vaccine was under development in the late 90’s and was commercialised around 2003.

Orochol, and the new vaccine being developed by PaxVax, are single dose vaccines which mean immunity is developed quickly (within 8 days) and can be used in disaster response.  Current non-GMO double dose vaccines on the market can not be rolled out in response to outbreaks; hence Orochol and it’s derivatives stand to make a big difference to health of disaster survivors.  Orochol has also been found to safe and effective for use on HIV infected people, and so is suitable for deployment in sub-Saharan Africa and for use with HIV infected individuals.

Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde is used in the manufacture of this vaccine, which prevents its use in people who are allergic to formaldehyde.

Some people are concerned about the use of formaldehyde in vaccines due to the poisonous and carcinogenic nature of the substance.  Formaldehyde breaks down quickly in the body and does not accumulate. Short term exposure to small amounts of formaldehyde has no lasting or dangerous effects unless the recipient is allergic.

Long term exposure to formaldehyde is linked to cancer, so those at risk are the workers in the vaccine factories and those who handle formaldehyde during it’s use or transport.

The use of formaldehyde is regulated by National and State standards. The national occupational exposure standard:

“The current national occupational exposure standard for formaldehyde is 1 ppm 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) and 2 ppm short-term exposure limit (STEL). The NICNAS report recommends that the occupational exposure standard be lowered to 0.3 ppm 8h TWA and 0.6 ppm STEL. Formaldehyde has been shown to cause nasal cancers in animals at levels not found in the majority of workplaces.

The basis for lowering the current exposure standard is sensory irritation. The recommended exposure standards not only provide adequate protection against discomfort of sensory irritation, but also provide a high level of protection against cancer. The recommended standard is being considered by the Office of the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, the national agency responsible for setting national occupational exposure standards.”

NICNAS Factsheet

The risk to a cholera vaccine taker from formaldehyde is limited due to it’s quick break down in the stomach and low toxicity in small doses.  Of far more concern is the sustained exposure to formaldehyde in, for example, 2nd hand cigarette smoke, or indoor exposure in a carpeted room. Some plastics, nylon and other household items also emit formaldehyde.

Risks

Sister vaccines to that being proposed have been thoroughly tested and about 60,000 doses have been administered in the field with no issues arising.  The primary concern of anti-gmo advocates seems to be whether the genetically modified  organism can somehow pollute the host.  There is no evidence that this is even possible.  The GMO is not released into the wild and is only used in the vaccine itself, which is destroyed by the host body.

The small potential for problems needs to be weighed up against the advantage of a vaccine that is single dose, can be deployed in disaster areas as they happen to prevent the outbreak of cholera, that can be used in areas where HIV is prevalent and is safe for use in children.

Sources:

http://nsnbc.me/2013/11/18/australian-government-to-begin-gmo-cholera-vaccine-trials-on-citizens/
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/formaldehyde
http://toxicology.usu.edu/endnote/a2beeca34492f54429.pdf
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=218&tid=39
http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/scienceresearch/ucm349473.htm
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/new-index-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9615498

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.

Belvedere Fire and Demolition

Early today (13/11/2013) the heritage listed Belvedere Home in South Brisbane caught fire.  The fire service were unable to save the building, and the remains were declared too unsafe to allow entry by investigators.    An excavator was ordered in by the fire service to allow fire crew to dowse unsafe areas of the building.  The cause of the fire remains unknown, and police have declared the fire ‘suspicious’.

In 2010, the owners of the Belvedere had applied for permission to demolish the heritage building, but the application was knocked back by Council.  Rumours have long circulated that the owners, The Greek Orthodox Community, who also own the Greek Club next door, wished to build a carpark on the land for the Greek Club, however these rumours have always been denied by the owners. Not long after the demolition application was knocked back the house was boarded up and all services disconnected.

A long legal battle to appeal the decision ended recently with the Council retaining the right to block demolition.  The owners entered mediation with Council in May with a view to restoring the building. The plans have at different times been to turn the Belvedere into a restaurant, extension of the nursing home, or conference centre.  No definite plans were in place at the time of the fire.

Belvedere was built in 1888.

Photos of the insides of the abandoned Belvedere home: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=%22abandoned%20belvedere%20house%22
Photo of the Belvedere in it’s heyday:  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/photogallery/queensland/historical-brisbane-home-the-belvedere-20101213-18uhk.html?selectedImage=2

Photos of the demolition today, here, and below:

Belvedere House demolition after unexplained fire

Belvedere House demolition after unexplained fire

Belvedere House demolition after unexplained fire

Belvedere House demolition after unexplained fire

Belvedere House demolition after unexplained fire

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