Yesterday we (as the five activists named below) peacefully tore down a small piece of the fence at the Baxter Immigration Detention Facility as a symbolic protest against Australia's policy of mandatory detention.
"We state that the damaging of the fence is non-violence, believing that in fact this fence represents the violence inflicted on innocent human beings by our inhumane policy."
Our action took place on Easter Sunday morning. The five of us crossed a small perimeter fence and then used a nylon rope and small metal hook to pull off some strands of electrified wire running along the top of the main fence. We did this away from the main protest activity and police presence. We then dropped our equipment and stood with our hands in the air, peacefully giving ourselves up for arrest as the police arrived. We remain open and accountable for these actions as we believe that they are morally right.
We took this action independently but in solidarity with the wider convergence at Baxter which was to peacefully protest against detention policy in this country.
"We are disappointed with any violence against people allegedly perpetrated by protesters, just as we are dismayed by the heavy handed police tactics, in particular the unnecessary brutality we received during our arrests. However, we especially condemn the systemic violence being committed against hundreds of innocent people in Australian detention centres."
We also want to draw attention to the hypocrisy of our 'justice' system where we who have committed a crime are free to travel and enjoy our comfortable lives, while those who have committed no crime are imprisoned indefinitely.
"We and other activists will continue to protest vigorously and non-violently until every detention centre is closed and refugees are welcomed here."
Phone contact: [contacts inserted] Currently traveling back from SA by coach but will respond when in range.
Five Western Australian activists defended their fence-cutting protest at the Baxter Detention Centre over Easter, describing the action as morally right.
The five said they tore down a small piece of the Baxter fence on Sunday as a symbolic protest against Australia's policy of mandatory detention.
They were arrested at the scene and were expected to appear in court at a later date.
But in a joint statement Tonja Boyd, Nathan Harris, Dave Morris, Mike Quinn and Khristo Newall said they believed their action was a non-violent protest against the violence inflicted on innocent people.
"The five of us crossed a small perimeter fence and then used a nylon rope and small metal hook to pull off some strands of electrified wire running along the top of the main fence," they said.
"We did this away from the main protest activity and police presence. We then dropped our equipment and stood with our hands in the air, peacefully giving ourselves up for arrest as the police arrived."
"We remain open and accountable for these actions as we believe that they are morally right."
The five said they took their action independently but in solidarity with the wider protest at Baxter over the Easter weekend.
They said they were dismayed by what they described as heavy-handed police tactics during the demonstrations and also wanted to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the justice system which allowed them to be free after committing a crime while people who had not committed any offence were held in immigration detention.
Over Easter about 400 pro-refugee activists clashed with about as many police outside the Baxter Detention Centre near Port Augusta in South Australia's mid-north.
A total of 16 people were arrested and charged with a range of offences including trespassing, hindering police and resisting arrest.
Gee Khristo, how brave of you. Did you also belt the police horses? Just imagine Khristo, if I stood by my beliefs because I knew they were right none of you lefty idiots would be around.
Posted by: TT Tazman at April 5, 2005 08:08 PM
Khristo you are full of crap. There are many many laws I disagree with but I don't go out and become violent. I would like to take you at your word that all you wanted to do was pull down a fence. The actions of your friends there make that hard to believe. They were saying that the police went too far and all they wanted to do was protest up to the fence.
That is absolute rubbish. If the police were not there in numbers the mob would have broken into Baxter and done serious damage. Lying is just part of the game now for activists. Far too many of these activists take way to much enjoyment in what the do.
So what is your personal position on this Khristo? Is it no-one is illegal? Or is it let them live in the community until they are assessed.
Would you be prepared to throw ANY of them out of Australia if they were judged not to be refugees, and if not why not?
Posted by: Sam Richards at April 5, 2005 08:18 PM
Tazman the Brain: "Just imagine Khristo, if I stood by my beliefs because I knew they were right none of you lefty idiots would be around."
The neocons are as into gulags, media control and "disappearing" people as their Soviet ideological founders were.
Posted by: Dave Green at April 5, 2005 08:43 PM
Sam, and of course TT, never break the law Khristo, thus their moral superiority. They always obeyed Mum too.
It seems pretty straight forward to me. You created a disturbance to make a point you felt strongly about. Nobody was hurt, no real damage done. But you broke the law and were prepared to accept the consequences.
Not my cup of tea, but I don't have a problem with it. And like you say, why should you have any more rights than the detainees?
Posted by: Phil Uebergang at April 5, 2005 08:51 PM
Khristo, you obviously did a lot of thinking before taking action. My heart goes out to you for having the strength of conviction to stand up for the rights of fellow humans. It took a lot of courage. I wish more in our community felt as you do. It is just as wrong to lock up innocent people now, as it was in the 1930's. I wish more people had shown the same courage then.
Only with continued protest will the fences come down.
Posted by: John Pratt at April 5, 2005 09:26 PM
Dave Green, I'm not sure about the Soviet ideological forefathers of the neocons. If you would care to explain further?
And as for the protest, its every citizens right to protest for their beliefs (though if Christians marched through the streets in support of Family First or anti abortion or something I wonder what the reaction would be).
And every citizen's duty is to obey the law. If the two come into conflict, a choice must be made, and either idealism must bow to the law, or the consequences of the law must be faced.
In this case, those 5 chose to break the law, and therefore in accepting that they did so, deserve anything and everything they get. Whether its a warning or jail (unlikely), it's deserved. And that's the price that has to be paid, I guess. I just hope that it was worth it.
Posted by: Stuart Lord at April 5, 2005 09:26 PM
Khristo, that is the biggest load of rubbish I have read in a long time, and I am surprised that Margo allowed you to submit it. You went to Baxter with express purpose of conflicting with the police so that it would get in the press. At the same time you endangered police personnel who were only doing their job.
Next time you want to draw attention to yourself why don't you commit suicide outside the gates at Baxter. I would come and watch you and would bring the press with me.
Posted by: Myra Heard at April 5, 2005 09:32 PM
Serious damage to what, Sam Richards, the fence, a wall, maybe the razor wire? Trust you to be more concerned about a fence than the poor sods inside who never did anyone any harm. And before you get on your high horse, it's not a crime to seek asylum.
Posted by: Jane Rayner at April 5, 2005 09:41 PM
TT Tazman, please tell me your beliefs. They sound pretty frightening even you aren't prepared to stand up for them. And tell me, are you saying that you wouldn't stand up for your beliefs if you thought they were right? So when would you stand up for them? Or aren't you sure that your beliefs are right, in which case isn't it about time you thought about changing them?
I'm really interested to find out what you are really saying because I can't work it out from this post.
For the record, There is lots of theatre in demonstrating, but rarely is much achieved.
If I thought that a serious wrong was being done, and in order to right it I had to break a law, I would do so, make it clear I had, explain the reasons why, and accept the consequences. However, if I had the opportunity, I would work behind the scenes to have the laws changed.
I'm not sure that pulling down a fence really fits in the first category. I am sure that there is lots of boring, and frustrating, but ultimately more fruitful work that can be done out of the public view that will achieve better results than what happened at Easter at Baxter.
Posted by: David Grace at April 5, 2005 09:44 PM
So now we have the 'Khristo defence': I committed a violent act but I am absolved of my actions because "I believed them to be right, and knew that I did them in the true spirit of non-violent direct action".
What a hoot.
No doubt Justice Kirby and his ilk will find some arcane piece of international law justifying this nonsense.
Keep it up people.
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 5, 2005 09:52 PM
It's true, Jane Rayner, that in most countries it's not a crime to seek asylum. However, by doing so you place yourself under the laws of that country regarding asylum applications. If the voting majority of citizens of that nation wish to detain asylum seekers until their claims can be verified (or at least voted for the party whose position that was), then that is the process they have to go through.
If other citizens wish for more liberal laws regarding asylum seekers, then they have a perfectly legal way of achieving this, mainly by elections. Such is the way democracy runs. If this is unacceptable, then break the law by all means, as long as those who do so are willing to face the consequences.
Posted by: Stuart Lord at April 5, 2005 09:54 PM
So David Grace, if I think you are perpetrating a grave wrong can I come and destroy your home? Have you really thought through the consequences of what you are advocating? It seems not.
This is unbelievable. All law is relative - if I don't like it I do what I like because I feel it's right. And some people think the neocons are the ones dangerous to society.
Margo: Adrian, ever heard of Ghandi?
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 5, 2005 09:56 PM
Good one Margo. Khristo Newall and the lefty rent-a-crowd are closer to Osama Bin Laden then Ghandi. Much closer.
Margo: Sam, I was referring to the principles of civil disobedience, as you well know. Go to bed!
Posted by: Sam Richards at April 5, 2005 10:20 PM
Adrian, are you suggesting all laws should be obeyed at all times?
Posted by: Bob Wall at April 5, 2005 10:29 PM
Margo - Are you serious? Khristo admits to perpetrating an act of violence, viz:
"Meanwhile I want to emphasise my belief that pulling down some strands of electric fence is not violent, nor wrong; not when that fence is part of, and represents, the violence being perpetrated en-mass to hundreds of innocent people, men, women and children."
That is not what Ghandi stood for nor what he practiced.
Your analogy is extremely inappropriate and surely misleading.
As I asked David Grace, can I damage your home because I disagree with what you are doing?
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 5, 2005 10:45 PM
Bob Wall - I'll start with a "Yes". Please deconstruct.
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 5, 2005 10:47 PM
Once again we get the argument that applying for asylum is not an offence; sure isn't, nor is applying for a legal resident visa, even if only admitted on a tourist visa. Arriving without a valid travel document is an offence, on the part of the passenger and the carrier. The annual Baxter/Hedland etc histrionics are becoming tiresome, and piss more people off than they convert to the cause of asylum seekers. I don't see any groundswell of public opinion calling for the stripping of bridging visas for those granted TPVs- Australians are tolerant of genuine cases, and also know when they're being snowed. Just like every jail is full of innocent people, Baxter is full of victims of a cruel and heartless system (that allows appeal all the way up to the High Court). At least "Khristo" seems prepared to take their lumps- is that because you were caught?
Posted by: paul bickford at April 5, 2005 10:52 PM
Adrian, thanks for the answer. Next question:
If a law is thought by some in a society to be unjust what processes would you deem not only acceptable but capable of achieving a change to that law?
Posted by: Bob Wall at April 5, 2005 10:59 PM
What a sanctimonious bunch of prigs some of us are.
I would like to thank Khristo for having the balls to do something I would have like to have done but didn't have the courage to or power of his convictions.
His actions were (I believe) considered and measured. The hysterical brayings of others with their heads firmly in the sand trying to equate his actions with belting police horses or trying to extrapolate hypothetical outcomes are laughable and juvenile.
Sam Richards in particular raises irony to a new and previously unchartered level with his accusations of lefty lying.
I am certain of whom I would want as my fellow Australian citizens. It is Khristo and his friends. Not these heartless moronic neo-bots who believe everything they are spoon fed.
A moral vacuum obviously is a side effect of another vacuum, between the ears.
Posted by: Stephen Callaghan at April 5, 2005 10:59 PM
"I want to make it absolutely clear that we were committed to avoiding conflict with police, and did not attempt to get away or resist. A key aspect of civil disobedience/Non Violent Direct Action (NVDA) is accountability and accepting the consequences."
I don't know Khristo, but I know something about the pathway he's travelling, and I want to affirm the integrity and thoughtfulness of his friends' nonviolent direct action.
The knockers on this site belittle Khristo by pretending he is trying to get away with bad behaviour. Far from undermining the rule of law, Khristo and his friends are affirming it. Engaging with it as a field of action/consideration/judgement. This kind of direct action is sure to draw attacks, and to stand for those attacks through moral belief is to take powerful moral action.
The Plowshares actions Khristo refers to use similar blends of material/symbolic material to create the foundation of dicussion. Police will need to demonstrate the nature of the material destroyed or interfered with. In this case an electric wire used to deter escape from a refugee detention centre. The wire is evidence of a crime far greater than wilful damage (mandatory detention). The Court will resist looking at that larger crime.
In non-violence, Khristo and his friends get their message out must now work to get their message out as broadly as they can, and mobilise as much public support as they can for looking at (and ending) that larger crime. We can help.
We can spread the word and talk about the role of nonviolent direct action in transforming our world. We can admire and support the principled engagement of Khristos and his friends with a problem requiring moral action. Hooray, and let's have more of it.
Ps, Adrian, if you want to come along and smash my house, and you're willing to wait for police and admit what you've done, then sure thing, come ahead - but it seems an expensive way to blow off a bit of steam. Pillows and sticks are much better for that sort of thing.
Destroying property used in the commission of a crime is not violence, it's peace-making.
Posted by: Bryan Law at April 5, 2005 11:00 PM
Adrian, Gandhi did use "non-violent"protest ... but don't think that meant meek and mild. Protests arranged by Gandhi were often very assertive and led to mass riots.
Anyway, look where it got him, shot in the head!
Adrian, hopefully you won't have to damage anyone's home should you disagree with what they are doing. You have recourse to the Police, your local council, other bodies such as the EPA (depending on what is being done) even the civil courts. This is where your analogy falls over. In fact these peurile analogies are getting tiresome.
Stick to the facts and the situation.
Posted by: Stephen Callaghan at April 5, 2005 11:10 PM
I support this action vigorously, because the essence of 'advanced' non-violent action, as carried out by Khristo and his group, is to stay conscious and alive, right through the fear and intimidation, and on target with the purpose of your civil disobedience.
As far as fear and intimidation goes, there was lots of it around Baxter during the Easter weekend, where your tax dollars flew out of your national pockets (is everyone reading this sentence?) by thousands of dollars per minute by having 400 cops and a helicopter guard the fences of a state-of-the-art facility protected by a 9000 volts electrical wire.
And, for those of you who heard of Cornelia Rau: don't go to remote Queensland when you're likely to be tired, a bit disjointed and out of it, so some ancient accent slurs your speech, while you gaze a little into nowhere when you're tired: you may end up in Baxter, and the mantra is "you'll never, ever leave"!
Fear is one way to react on intimidation. Anger or agression is another way. Only those who are truly big in mind and trained from the "masters of non-violence" such as Martin Luther King and Ghandi, can also start to master the transcending above this "noise" and keep conscious in the completion of an act in their work.
That was what impressed me a great deal about the actions of the "Baxter05-Five" - and yes, I did the media work for them during the weekend while they travelled back from Baxter.
Last week Lynn MacLaren MLC held her inaugural speech in the WA State Parliament, and this action became part of her speech (see it here).
How's that for a new meaning to the concept of "grappling with detention" and "hooked on Baxter"?
Love to you, Khristo!
Posted by: Jack H Smit at April 5, 2005 11:14 PM
TT Tazman, Sam Richards and Adrian Rees, Funny little people playing funny little games. You would have preferred it if Khristo was to just write a letter of protest which all your little cronies could have just ignored or even swamped with a lot of Government red tape.
All of us, including Khristo, don't just have a right, but a moral obligation to make themselves heard when things stink in the kingdom of democracy.
The wall she pulled downed was owned by Khristo, by me and by other Australians. I believe she had a moral right to pull down MY wall. If you don't like it then talk with other Australians and stop playing the card of "civility". This slight of hand magic trick of making everyone feel guilt because they have a different point of view to yours is boring.
Posted by: robert tuppini at April 5, 2005 11:19 PM
Oscar Schindler. He committed fraud and embezzlement against his nation. Broke the law. Saved lives.
For the record though I don't believe actions like this will solve the problem. In fact, I worry deeply about the false sense of hope they give to those still locked in detention just so Howard can keep the One Nation boofhead vote "locked in".
We have to get the Liberals out of Federal government, and make damn sure its a long time before they ever return. They need to do some serious time in the wilderness for this shit. I know that's not as satisfying as storming the walls so to speak, but its where we are, and reality is all that matters.
I know Labor started "mandatory" detention, but they never used it as a political tool. That should tell you something.
Posted by: Dave Green at April 5, 2005 11:24 PM
Bob Wall: I suggest you follow Stephen Callaghan's advice - try democratic elections, the courts etc.
Stephen Callaghan - You must have the Dyson Cyclonic between your ears. So whenever I run out of avenues of appeal against the law I take things into my own hands? Or am I misrepresenting you?
You were very keen to find out how many Iraqi deaths were deemed acceptable to impose democracy. How about you tell us how far you will go against a law you think is unjust? Is one death or murder justifiable?
Bryan Law: "Destroying property used in the commission of a crime is not violence, it's peace-making." I suppose I should be thankful you also didn't invoke Ghandi.
Do you also advocate assaulting the custodial staff at Baxter? How about firebombing Parliament House because they passed the laws that enabled these "crimes"? Where do you stop Bryan?
It's funny that those who advocate upholding nebulous international law 12,000 miles away don't see the need to support the definitive law we have right here.
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 5, 2005 11:27 PM
Jack Smit - So now destruction of property is "'advanced' non-violent action".
I just love this! Are you a publicist for Orwell?
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 5, 2005 11:30 PM
robert tuppini said: "The wall she pulled downed was owned by Khristo, by me and by other Australians. I believe she had a moral right to pull down MY wall."
Right on. Try these:
1. Hey, I don't like that planning order they passed at Strathfield Council last week. Seeing as WE all own the Council Chambers, I'll just smash it up a bit because I have a moral right.
2. Hey, that Centrelink was way unfair. I think I'll smash the windows because I pay the taxes that built the Centrelink office and I have a moral right.
3. Hey, I don't like what the Reichstag is doing. Seeing as WE all own it, I think I'll burn it down because I have a moral right.
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 5, 2005 11:39 PM
Khristo, thank you for the letter. It is the first time that I have read anything written directly by a person in your position.
The beauty about a democracy is that everyone is allowed to express their views, non violently, freely and without fear of persecusion. Another feature of a healthy democracy is that one is allowed to disagree with someone elses opinions.
So, my take on your "non violent" protest is two-fold. I agree with your setiments, I strongly disagree with your actions.
As some have said here, the fact that you feel strongly about this issue, as I do, does not mean you have the right to break the law.
If one takes the view that actions such as yours are designed to draw attention to the issue so that changes can be instigated in this area and nothing more, then you have succeeded in achieving the former.
Changes, however, will not occur through actions such as your and your friends'. Governments, elected ones at that, only respond to numbers, they live and die by them. You did not have the numbers at Baxter, nor, I suspect, were your actions supported by the majority of us that agree with your aims.
What you're trying to achieve can only come about by the government realising there is more milage in treating those asylum seekers in a manner more suited to a benevolent and fair society.
Most successful non violent actions in history achieved their success by the sheer number of supporters working and campaigning for the cause or attending public gatherings. Cases in point; Ukraine, Philippines, Romania.
So how do you demonstrate the numbers supporting your aims to an uncaring government that would only take notice only in the presence of a demonstrated power-threatening opposition? How do you engage and activate those that agree with you and yet remain largely apathetic on the issue?
The answers I believe, lays in making it easy for them to raise their hands on the issue.
We have here a wonderful medium largely unused by the general public in matters democratic, so perhaps the better use of it may provide some answers to the questions above.
The simplest way I can think of showing what numbers you have behind you is to initiate an internet petition. The way I see it working would be as follows: Create a petition document that people can download and print. Those that are willing, would take those documents to their friends, workmates and even to shopping centres. Then as they filled those, they would mail it registered post, (trust no-one!, to a central address where the petition would then be gathered into one large truckload and delivered to parliament.
I believe you would raise several million signatures. You would need that many to generate the changes this issue merits.
Then and only then, would you possibly make people like TT Tazman reconsider their views. It might not change their opinion but the government will sit up and take note of such a large number of people telling them their wrong.
They will take note because once it is publicly demonstrated that such large numbers are against their policies, they'll know that the likelyhood of a further four or five percent withdrawing their support for the government would mean they'd lose the power they so covet.
I admire your dedication and ideals Khristo. If I thought you stood a chance of success through your actions, I'd probably make the trip next time you go to Baxter. However, I fear actions such as yours only damage the cause.
My idea is but one. I am sure there are better ones out there. To succeed, keep this in mind; At the end of the day, in a democracy, it's a numbers game.
Good luck to you and us that want decency in government.
Posted by: Rubens Camejo at April 5, 2005 11:42 PM
Adrian, since you bring up the Reichstag, it is probably a good time to bring in the Nuremberg judgement that just following orders and doing what was lawful at the time can still be considered a crime when judged by other standards. So it isn't good enough just to rely on a strict legalistic framework for your actions, you have to apply a moral judgement as well.
This is, of course, not simple, and if, like Khristo, you act out your moral judgement in defiance of the law you have to accept that you will very likely be punished. Nonetheless, by so doing you have established that you are a human being not a robot or a sheep.
Posted by: David Roffey at April 5, 2005 11:46 PM
Adrian, who murdered anybody? Yet another totally crap analogy. Mate, if you are just being antagonistically obtuse, well done. If you really cannot differentiate between murder and Khristos actions then I would suggest a series of electro shock treatment (bite down hard on the rubber bone) and a course of mild sedatives to get your perception back to normal levels.
Frankly, Yes, you are misrepresenting me. It seems to be a favourite tactic of those who cannot muster a coherent argument. One death could never be justified in overturning Australia's barbaric mandatory detention policy, hence the measured and considered actions of protesters at Baxter.
Posted by: Stephen Callaghan at April 5, 2005 11:47 PM
Adrian, I asked for your opinion, ie., what you thought. So your thoughts are:
"I suggest you follow Stephen Callaghan's advice - try democratic elections, the courts etc."
Apart from advising me what to do, which wasn't the point of the question, at least it was an answer of sorts, even if it was someone else's. Perhaps it is the best you can do. Then I suppose there is nothing wrong in referring to more informed opinion.
Next question: do you consider that there are any circumstances when the processes you advised are too slow or are obstructive to change and other methods might be justified?
Posted by: Bob Wall at April 5, 2005 11:52 PM
Doing what is right often requires courage & you have it Khristo. Never be discouraged by conservatives who sit on their hands & make noises about democratic processes, obeying the law & so on. These are the kind of hypocrites who bought us Hitler. Meanwhile, our own government is acting illegally & destroying a lot more than some fence in the process. So keen to be right about something in life, one even feigns concern for a horse whilst overlooking the obvious human concerns at the centre of the whole affair. Typical hey?
Moralistic bullying by the immoral majority is about the size of politics in contemporary Australia & at some point, the aging imbeciles who voted in this criminal government yet again will have to learn that regurgitating spoon fed propaganda is not the same as being right. Besides, anyone who cannot distinguish between a Centrelink office & an inhumane prison shouldn't be voicing opinion anyway.
Posted by: Ian Maxwell at April 6, 2005 12:01 AM
Right on, Adrian ....try these (this is how your analogies SHOULD be presented if they are to fairly reflect the actions of Khristo and what they were protesting about).
1. The planning laws at Strathfield take 2 to 6 years to pass. In that time, your house (the subject of the planning development) is locked up and you are denied access to it. You are also locked up Adrian. You only see your lawyer once every couple of months. There is of course a language barrier as the council operates with a foreign language. Your wife and children are kept in another facility seperate to you. You haven't seen them for nearly a year. On top of this Adrian, you also may be suffering from panic and anxiety regarding your last development application (you remember the one? Where Strathfield Council came into your house in the middle of the night and shot your father and took your 2 sons away to join an armed militia.) You will of course receive no help with psychiatric treatment.
You will win your development application but before you can be released to put that granny flat over the garage, Strathfield Council will change the laws and you are back at stage one.
Anyway, I again thank Khristo and friends for their actions. Well done. I really don't want to be dragged into another slinging match with people. It pains me enought to realise that these cold individuals are walking the streets with me and my children. I just want to grab them and shout into their sheeplike faces "what the hell made you such a miserable bastard?"
Posted by: Stephen Callaghan at April 6, 2005 12:05 AM
David Roffey: I wasn't aware that the Nuremburg judges found that the Reichstag burning was OK. Can you give me a transcript reference?
Stephen Callaghan: I thought you would appreciate the reducto ad absurdum approach, seeing you have used it. Get the chip off your shoulder and let me know when you actually have an argument to put rather than showy put-downs.
Bob Wall: No. If I live in a democratic society and my view isn't prevailing then I have to stick with it. And there may be a difference between truly non-violent actions and the sort of things we are seeing advocated herein.
That's enough for tonight; I'm going to bed. I hope no one destroys any property overnight because of their self-actualised moral right.
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 6, 2005 12:14 AM
Your righteousness shines through like a beacon Stephen Callaghan. All of what you said is fantasy.
So tell me again - how far are you prepared to go against an unjust law? You've ruled out murder - what are your boundaries?
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 6, 2005 12:17 AM
While we do nothing we are complicit in the imprisonment of people who came here to ask for our help and protection, who are now more psychologically traumatised than they were when they fled. If we keep our eyes shut, and them behind fences, we don't have to admit they're real people - just like us, only not lucky enough to be born here.
Posted by: Robyn Clothier at April 6, 2005 12:27 AM
Not fantasy. Just showing you the ridiculous nature of your analogies.
Hardly my righteousness showing through. Just my humanity.
How far would I go? I certainly do support civil disobediance by those who are prepared to pay the personal cost. Unfortunately I do not have the courage. I wish I did. I believe the level of protest that was taken at Baxter is somewhere areound the appropriate amount.
I am not aware of any "chip" on my shoulder. You can not unsettle me that easily cobber, there is no self doubt or ulterior motive here just the (basic) human ability to empathise. I do however thank you for at least rating my put downs as "showy".
When I too lay me down to sleep I shall hope for a minimum of property damage to occur.
I notice that you misrepresented David Roffey re: the Reichstag, but I shall let him take you to task on that.
If I promise to tone down the self actualising will you at least promise to start reading what others write and look up the meaning of the word analogy?
Posted by: Stephen Callaghan at April 6, 2005 12:40 AM
*****As Gummow J indicated in Al-Kateb at [86] ff, the current Migration Act, unlike its precursors, does not make it an offence for an unlawful non-citizen to enter or to be within Australia in contravention of, or in evasion of, the Act.****
Why do Tazman, Bickford and co still persist in the whining belief that arriving without a visa is an offence in our law when even the High Court says it is not? Are you really that stubbornly stupid you can' t face the fact you have been had?
I'll post it again just in case you tossers really can't read too well.
As Gummow J indicated in Al-Kateb at [86] ff, the current Migration Act, unlike its precursors, does not make it an offence for an unlawful non-citizen to enter or to be within Australia in contravention of, or in evasion of, the Act.
31 Further, as Hayne J observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person's immigration status as "unlawful" serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a "valid permission to enter and remain in Australia". The use of the term "unlawful" does not as such refer to a breach of a law.
Give it a rest now boys, if it is an offence in law just charge a small fine and get it over and one with instead of locking up people who have done nothing wrong at all for years and years, both inside and outside detention.
Now the little bit of fence broken was about $5000 we are told, to lock up one baby in Port Augusta housing is $4,600 per week - let the baby free and pay for the f....g fence.
Amir became a permanent resident last week, late and we had a talk tonight. Amir is a microbiologist I have written about many times with his permission - his story is fairly typical.
He had to run and run from Husseins Iraq, both as and educated man and a Sabean Mandaean. He had no money so he came the cheapest way, and arrived here in February 2000. He went to Woomera and came out on 10 December - good day for liberty he thought.
Until he was told about his wreched TPV which would keep his wife and kids out for at least 3 years. Now it has been 4 years and 4 months and he will have to wait another 3 - 7 months before they can come here.
If he had been able to get to England he would have not spent one day in jail, he would have been a permanent resident as soon as his claim was tested and approved and his wife and kids would have been with him years ago - in fact that goes for the other 140 nations who signed the refugee convention.
It should be a wonderful time but the sour taste in everyone's mouths, the years of torment and pain inflicted is too huge to overcome.
Amanda rang him and apologised.
Amanda has now done a number of things.
1. Reassessed and released the 86 Mandaeans that Ruddock was determined to deport. Carmen wrote about the shocking time they had in Iraq and Iran and I know quite a number of them - they are pacifist to the core and lovely people in general.
2. Released all but one of the 20 families in long term detention when she took over - she deported the Bakhtiyaris' without cause and now casually claims they went home of their own free will, as if the midnight drag out of bed with 20 guards was nothing.
3. Reassessed the christian Iranians and they are being released.
So the question remains - why did she only deport one of the families? The family court heard hour after hour of the horror those children had been through, so why only them?
I didn't support this years protest at Baxter because things always get worse afterwards but I defend to the death their right to do it.
After all with the Pankhurst sisters women would never have got the vote or got out of the kitchen.
As for those police horses being beaten by protestors - it has never happened but at the Oakbank racecourse dozens and dozens of horses were flogged and whipped to run faster and over the steeplechase which is ever more dangerous.
Posted by: Marilyn Shepherd at April 6, 2005 12:43 AM
Adrian Rees: "Are you a publicist for Orwell?"
Gawd, Adrian, you are such a dork.
But, I'll make it simple so you may just get the point when you have a bright moment. Yes, I would give a million to be Orwell's publicist. Man, wouldn't he be the equivalent of Julian Burnside QC or Michael Moore?
Adrian, there was once a psychiatrist called Ronny Laing. In a book he wrote "the map is not the territory" when he talked about the map of a country or a continent.
Similarly, George Orwell the author is not the Australian Department of Immigration he had a vision of, when he wrote his book. He is the one who wrote the book, he's not the player.
Posted by: Jack H Smit at April 6, 2005 01:14 AM
This whole arguement reminds me of the "right to lifers" who made death threats against the judges who permitted the "murder" of Terri Schiavo. Isn't there some sort of contradiction there? No! It accords with the views of the Khristo types: allowing a vegetable to die peacefully is a crime warranting violent murder, because the murder is in accordance with your beliefs that your shouldn't commit murder .... err, did I get that right?
Posted by: Peter Wilkins at April 6, 2005 07:53 AM
Bob Wall, "are you suggesting all laws should be obeyed at all times?"
I think that is the idea of laws isn't it?
Posted by: Gareth Eastwood at April 6, 2005 08:09 AM
well done Khristo. I admire you. As schoolboy I became one of the 'bastards' Robin Askin urged his driver to run over when we surged (illegally) onto the road in front of LBJ. A small act of defiance but eventually with millions of people protesting around the world an unjust Vietnam War was brought to an end. People like you will be responsible and remembered one day for bringing an end to this awful incarceration of innocent people. Stick to your ideals and don't give up, no matter what they say about some stupid fence.
Posted by: Michael de Angelos at April 6, 2005 08:37 AM
Adrian Rees: You a little balilla ( black shirt of the fascist party) not wanting anyone to demonstrate or show opposition to your point of view. I am a partisan and I am happy to stomp on your political ideals and your political home in order that others have freedom of expression.
Posted by: robert tuppini at April 6, 2005 08:47 AM
Adrian Rees, Kiss Kiss baby, come ve vil make you velcom! We'll show you that misery, hurt and pain are just a state of mind . We will put you in such extreme pain and anguish and then not allow you to communicate.
You wanker Rees, put yourself in their position. Wouldn't you want anyone on the outside to help you with any means available, or are you such a North Shore prat that the only discomfort you've had is an ingrown toe nail?
God if I hear any more from these mummy's boys I think I'll puke!!!!
Posted by: robert tuppini at April 6, 2005 09:07 AM
Just wanted to express my support for you, Khristo - good on you for standing up for the most disenfranchised and powerless people in Australia.
I find the venom with which some people have responded to your post positively bizarre, given that these people usually claim to also be championing democracy. The ability to protest and undertake civil disobedience without fear of being lined up against a wall and shot is fundamental to democracy (to the regret, obviously, of TT Tasman). How did the American civil rights movement get on the political agenda there? It wasn't through polite letters to politicians.
More and more I hear the view that yours and my participation in democracy is limited to voting once every three years. Such a view suggests that we vote in a dictator rather than a Prime Minister. The numerous MPs and Senators who are not Liberal are there for what - ballast? The Liberals themselves (some of them, anyway) are open to discussion about their party's policies; witness the current revolt by some principled backbenchers on mandatory detention. From the accounts I've read these Liberals became interested after personal representations from refugee activists/concerned citizens. In other words: we can make a difference, and should.
If it wasn't for the tireless work of refugee activists then the gross injustices of mandatory detention would only ever register with the broader community when one of 'us', like Cornelia Rau, gets caught up in the process. This doesn't happen very often. Lawful lobbying is important, I agree, but I also think civil disobedience is a reasonable response to what many Australians regard as an unconscionable policy.
Posted by: David Curry at April 6, 2005 09:12 AM
Adrian and co,
So many have answered your questions, but seeing as you asked me, I thought I'd try to help you understand the difference between principled defiance of a law and lawlessness.
To start with the worst type of lawlessness first: I want something, you have it, I'm stronger than you and I take it. If you try to stop me, I threaten and commit whatever violence is needed to obtain what I want. This is a no brainer. Unless we live in a state where there are no laws no-one would see that this is acceptable, and we all want laws to stop this type of behaviour, and expect these laws to be respected.
Another type of lawlessness is where you are powerful enough to twist the existing law to obtain what you want. We can think of things like bottom of the harbour schemes, and a range of corporate arrangements. Most people see this as legal lawlessness and hold those who do it in contempt, apart from those who benefit from this lawlessness.
The next is lawlessness where the laws are not in line with the society or are weakly enforced. Some examples would be that more than 50% of teenage children smoke dope and are therefore criminals, or almost all of us who can drive have sped, and are therefore criminals. Most of us see this as very minor and laws like this probably need to to be reviewed.
I'm sure others could mention other types, and as I am not a lawyer, I'm sure I've missed some out.
The thing which is common with lawlessness, is that it is basically selfish. There isn't any element of protest or of trying to change the state.
Now to principled law breaking. Like anything there is a shady area between lawlessness and principled law breaking which is where the examples put by Adrian Rees and others like him are focussed. In many ways that is a good place to put the arguement, because it allows us to see more clearly the minefield that can exist in that shady area.
Adrian and co have done a really good job of describing this area, and if this post is not going to go on for ever, perhaps others could read their posts if they want to get examples.
One defining characteristic of all the examples is the emphasis on selfishness (I don't like this, I'm unhappy with you) and I think that this is the connection between lawlessness and the more primitive types of principled lawbreaking.
I'll try to start from the extreme end of principled law breaking. Here we stand with the real moral giants. At this point, we are talking about people who give away their self, to change what are patently wrong laws. Gladly there are many people we can name here: Mandela and Apartheid, Ghandi and India; Bonnhoefer and the others who plotted to kill Hitler; Schindler and his rescue of Jews; John Paul II and his efforts in both World War 2 and later with Solidarity. There are many others, and we all have our favourites. At this level of principled law breaking you know that the consequences of breaking these laws will be severe, including losing your life or your liberty, as happened with many I've named here. This is also where some of the simple princples of principled law breaking fail.
For instance in order to be successful, you may not want to publicly break the law, because by doing so you will lose the ability to further undermine it. I think the important part of the principle is that you are prepared to accept the consequence once you have been apprehended and stand up as publicly as possible to say why you broke the law.
I'm pretty sure that most would see these people as real heroes who were completely justified in what they did.
Another common thread which runs through these examples is that the state itself is lawless, and often at the worst level. There is no lawful way to change a clear injustice.
To finish with a more middle way is the example we are talking about now, committing a property crime to highlight an unjust law.
As Khristo said the people who did this were careful to decide what they were going to do, and that what they did was basically symbolic. I don't think they had ideas of completely pulling down the fence.
I think that the things that have to be asked here if you are going to follow principled law breaking are:
Is it going to harm any one else?
Am I doing it for selfish purposes? This would include a politician doing it to gain support from the constituency.
Can I achieve the same result using legal means?
Will my actions achieve the result I want?
Am I clear about what I want to change?
and of course; am I prepared to take responsibility for my actions?
In my first post I said that: There is lots of theatre in demonstrating, but rarely is much achieved.
If I thought that a serious wrong was being done, and in order to right it I had to break a law, I would do so, make it clear I had, explain the reasons why, and accept the consequences. However, if I had the opportunity, I would work behind the scenes to have the laws changed.
I'm not sure that pulling down a fence really fits in the first category. I am sure that there is lots of boring, and frustrating, but ultimately more fruitful work that can be done out of the public view that will achieve better results than what happened at Easter at Baxter."
Which means I would not have taken the same path as Khristo. But I am older, less agile, and probably have more power to change things legally, so I can't say what I would have done if I was in Khristo's shoes.
Hope this helps.
Posted by: David Grace at April 6, 2005 09:14 AM
Khristo, I believe that these loathsome concentration camps should be closed down. I also think that you are acting with the most noblest of intentions.
However, I also think that what you are doing is not helping the wretched individuals trapped inside. Unfortunately, if anything, it might make it worse.
The Government's demonisation of these people started long before the Tampa sailed on to the horizon. If you remember back, you will recall that a very complicit commercial media ran GOVERNMENT FOOTAGE of the detainees rioting, throwing things and committing acts of vandalism at those "five star hotels" such as Woomera and Port Hedland.
This set the public mindset and very little has changed since then. The exception might be that rather than feeling utter contempt for the "illegals" or "queue jumpers" (my tongue is firmly in my cheek when I use these expressions), the mood has probably changed somewhat to ambivalence. Your average voter will be much more concerned about what the RBA is going to do today rather than what is going on behind the walls of Baxter.
Which brings me back to my point. There is a chance to change the public's mood, although this will be mighty difficult given the Government's ability to manipulate public mood on the subject. But, believe me, marching on Baxter and pulling down fences gives the Government, with the help of its complicit commercial media yet another chance to taint the refugee cause.
All the public sees is some "rent-a-crowd" causing trouble and wasting taxpayers' money by destroying their beautiful fences. Never mind that the Government wasted millions by keeping one Palestinian man locked up on his own on Manus island for months. How much media coverage did that disgraceful episode get?
Don't ask me what you should change your plans to, but a change in strategy is badly needed.
Posted by: Steve Turbit at April 6, 2005 09:23 AM
You know something, I just read through the 38 posts on an action on refugees and around the 30th this bell went off in my head and I though "were is Marilyn", It never takes Marilyn over 5 minutes to respond to a thread on Refugee's. But she showed up eventually so all is good. She also says that she did not support this years protests, for once Marilyn and I agree on something!
Anyway, this Khristo character is a classic example of a loopy lefty. Perhaps the quintessential lefty. Whose argument is so pathetic, mixed up and contradictory that it is almost insane. Let's lock him up, just for being a goose. "NVDA" these idiots have even invented an acronym for what they do. You can protest out the front of Baxter, get on TV, why do you need to hit Horses and pull down fences? Why do you need to put balloons in the air endangering Helicopter pilots? I have no issue with people protesting, so long as it is done within the laws. Breaking the law to show your protest and justifying this by saying all is good as Ill cop the consequences can open a whole can of worms.
Hell, when your actions have Marilyn and I agreeing on something you know you truly have totally lost the plot.
Posted by: j wilshaw at April 6, 2005 09:45 AM
Gareth Eastwood: "I think that is the idea of laws isn't it?" (confirming that all laws should be obeyed at all times)
Sometimes the law is an ass, Gareth, and sometimes it is a much more malignant animal. Once it was a crime to assist a fleeing slave. In another part of the world it was once it was a crime to give assistance to a Jew trying to remain outside an internment camp. In another part of the world it was a crime to hold hands in public with a person of another skin colour. Who are the good guys-those who upheld those laws, or those who broke them? How comfortably does all this sit with your general idea?
Posted by: Bill Avent at April 6, 2005 10:29 AM
I commend you on your actions, myself being a 'loopy lefty', I was dissapointed I couldn't make it. The system is wrong, it is so fair and inhumane and the majority of Australians are too ignorant to realise this.
Keep up the good fight.
Posted by: Benjamin Solah at April 6, 2005 10:34 AM
David, Steve et al
Plenty of boring, frustrating work has already been done by thousands of people out of the public view. Though I am reluctant to admit it, I think we have got to the point where we have to answer your question "Can I achieve the same result using legal means?" with a No. A terrible injustice has been done to asylum seekers in this country from which many, even when released, will take years to heal. How can we stand by any longer?
Posted by: Robyn Clothier at April 6, 2005 10:46 AM
Adrian Rees, "So David Grace, if I think you are perpetrating a grave wrong can I come and destroy your home? Have you really thought through the consequences of what you are advocating? It seems not".
Yet, because Saddan Hussein was perpetrating a grave wrong you support the invasion, military assault and occupation of Iraq, an action that has destroyed the homes of countless hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who just happened to be in the way.
Adrian Rees, "In all your tirades against action in Iraq I haven't seen one argument as to why they shouldn't have democracy".
You give your full moral support to the military invasion of an entire country because you think its citizens deserve better yet are outraged because others bring down a fence believing those behind it deserve better.
Posted by: James Govett at April 6, 2005 10:50 AM
j wilshaw, how can toy balloons endanger helicopter pilots? Why do helicopters deserve a capital letter-are they some kind of deity or something? Are you sure it was just a bell that went off in your head?
Posted by: Bill Avent at April 6, 2005 11:14 AM
I draw the attention of Marilyn Shepherd and others to the inconvennience of Section 42 of the Migration Act; arrival without a valid travel document is not necessarily an offence (there are some exclusions, such as loss/theft of passport, provided you have evidence, and usually the local legation issues a document such as a laissez passe provided they are satisfied with the bona-fides of the person in question). Intentional destruction of travel documents, and arriving without documentation with the intent to gain entry to Australia is and continues to be an offence, despite the feeble efforts of activist High Court beaks; the court can only interpret statute, not change it.
Posted by: Paul Bickford at April 6, 2005 11:00 AM
Robyn, When the answer is that legal means are not working, then the calculations get harder. You have to ask what is the most effective non violent way to achieve a change in the law. You also have to start asking questions about how much of the law that it is necessary to break, and when you will decide to stop breaking the law.
I think it is also important to talk to those who aer still using legal means to acheive the same ends to ensure that you don't hurt what they are doing.
I get worried about symbolic acts because I am not sure they are very effective, and they often only resonate to those who already agree with you. As you can see from some of the posts here, you don't get many converts from the other side.
I'd be seeing a more effective way of changing the laws non legally here would be to make it clear that you would give shelter to those who have avoided these camps, making opportunities available for them to give their story across in the media.
One of the most effective things for me in the Vietnam war protests was when This Day Tonight interviewed the Attorney General of the time and then brought in a Draft dodger, who was more articulate, than this man. The Draft Dodger knew what he was doing could land him in Gaol, and the A-G spent most of his time bleating "Arrest that man", but it got across very clearly the barrennes s of the Governemtns policy and the fact that they had lost the plot. The police were called and he did make a run through the studios. I don't know if he got caught.
Gareth, I'd like to see your response to Bill Avents post. There are times where the law must be broken if you are to act morally.
Posted by: David Grace at April 6, 2005 11:20 AM
Regarding Benjamin Solah and others, I am not ignorant, nor are most Australians. We are literate and educated, and have a fine idea of right and wrong, something missing from a lot of the arguments presented here.
I have no problem with people being detained while their status is determined, and being detained prior to deportation if they have no legal grounds to remain here. Most Australians agree.
There are a lot of people of a leftist bent who believe no-one should ever be detained, no matter what horror they have perpetrated. The fact of the matter is that all the persons currently detained at Baxter, Villawood etc are only detained while they remain in Australia - they are free to leave at any time, and the Commonwealth will stump up the airfare.
The only thing keeping them in custody is themselves, and the bloody-minded encouragement of misguided activists and a few publicity-seeking lawyers. A minor number of cases are a little different, as the country of origin refuses to take back the detainee; if sufficient pressure was brought to bear by the Australian government I'm sure these decisions would be changed.
I'm amazed that supposedly rational people take everything they're told by people who are seeking a specific outcome at face value; I would have thought the Bakhtiari matter would have made such blind acceptance subject to at least cursory scrutiny.
Posted by: Paul Bickford at April 6, 2005 11:49 AM
Bill Avent: "Once it was a crime to assist a fleeing slave. In another part of the world it was once a crime to give assistance to a Jew trying to remain outside an internment camp. In another part of the world it was a crime to hold hands in public with a person of another skin colour. Who are the good guys-those who upheld those laws, or those who broke them?"
Bill, you said it perfectly!
Posted by: Carl Baker at April 6, 2005 12:09 PM
Paul, I know a man who fled Iran after his father and 2 brothers were murdered by the security forces after providing some material assistance (mainly food) to rebels opposed to the Islamic theocracy. He left a wife & 2 children with barely the time to say goodbye. He was detained for 4 years & eventually released on a TPV after appealling to the Minister's discretionary powers. Having not seen his family for 4 years, there is still no possibility of a reunion.
Now, you can accuse me of taking things at face value but, to me, there is something very wrong with a system that denies that this man is a refugee.
Posted by: Robyn Clothier at April 6, 2005 12:13 PM
Margo, this is the most pointless non debate I've seen on Webdiary yet. How can you stand it? What's the point of it? I know I saw the word 'Reichstag' in there somewhere. And 'concentration camp'. The usual insults over irrationality, political intrigue, democratic ignorance. Ho hum.
Margo: Hi Phil. Civil disobedience is a fraught topic, yes? It invites people to consider when, if ever, they would disobey the law to be true to their beliefs in the certain knowledge that they will be arrested. Naturally the debate is messy and some people seek to avoid such self-examination. I have done one act of civil disobedience in my life. I was arrested at the famous 'right to march' protest at King George Square in Brisbane when I was about 19 when I walked onto the street from the Square. At least 700 police faced us protesters off, and lots of people were arrested and put in the lock-up. There were 20 other women in the small cell I was in. I don't regret what I did, but I hope I never feel I have to do it again. An awful experience.
Posted by: Phil Uebergang at April 6, 2005 12:34 PM
Stephen Callaghan, I answer yes to your two last questions.
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 6, 2005 12:37 PM
While I agree with the sentiments of Kristo and the group, the PROBLEM is and has always been what is the alternative? They have not put up any real alternatives and tried to actively argue them. OK, locking people up until we find out if they are refugees or not is not acceptable, so what do we do?
What happens when a people arrive claiming refugee status ?
Do we give the temporary protection visa until we verify they are who they say they are? Or do we turn them away right back then and there? Or just let them in?
Well we cannot send them back as we have obligations under a UN agreement on refugees, so that leaves visas or just letting them in.
If we give them a visa does it restrict the ability to work, marry, have kids? Because of the various appeals an applicant can pursue the process could take years.
What if after all that they are not refuges do we them deport them? What if they are married got good jobs; do we still send them and the new wife and or kids back? Or do we just let them stay?
Ok this is getting ugly, what about the last option - just let them in? Cool - no worries about detention centres, no worries about messy visas and processes, sweet!
The only question is now that they have turned put claimed they are refugees and we have let them in is how do we support them? Do they automatically get Medicare, Job start allowance, language support, housing support? To take that further do they get access to the family reunion immigration scheme?
That goes to the main question of immigration. If we have untold number of people entering the country what does that do to our immigration policy? Do we just forget about target numbers, skilled migrants etc and just let the market call the shots?
That's the problem. Our protest feels more like a media event than a real attempt to stop detention. The struggle is to answer the above questions and sell them to Australian people.
Posted by: brad spence at April 6, 2005 12:49 PM
Jack Smit, apart from all the quasi-intellectual references do you have an argument to put? I'll lay it out for you again:
Your quote: "advanced' non-violent action". This refers to those actions "as carried out by Khristo and his group".
What Khristo said in his article: "I and four others chose a spot at Baxter to jump the perimeter fence and then used a grappling hook and rope to symbolically pull down part of the main fence."
So - "'advanced' non-violent action" = damaging property.
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 6, 2005 12:50 PM
Robert Tuppini, let me know when you find anything in my posts that says no one can demonstrate about anything I don't agree with.
Ho hum - more rude and stereotyped insults/garbage. Spare me the drivel. Try and muster an argument instead if you can.
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 6, 2005 01:00 PM
Not for people seeking asylum Paul, that would breach article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which the department and government are well aware of. How many times do you have to be told there is no f....g offence. If there is an offence charge people, don't just lock them up and throw away the key. There is no law broken and unless a law is broken there is no bloody offence.
The Bakhtiyari case was a fraud committed by the Immigration department, not the family. Here is a fact acknowledged by the department - as soon as a person claims asylum they are legally in Australia. Have you ever once heard any person in the government claim that the people in detention have ever committed an offence? If so why don't you share it with us all.
In the Al Kateb case the government conceded there is no offence, so if 7 judges of the High Court read the law as read and say there is no offence who the hell are you to say they are wrong and why are you so determined to disbelieve everyone but DIMIA?
You are right about one thing though, everyone still in detention after all these years could be deported tomorrow - this government drags little babies from bed and deports them, they send home Chinese women for forced abortions at 38 weeks so why aren't they deporting these last few men?
In Baxter are about 30 men they are claiming are from Pakistan - why not send them out of the country on false documents? Why not send Peter Qasim to Pakistan and the Iraqis to Syria as they have in the past? They have sent home dozens of Sri Lankans and Iranians before today, so why keep just these last few locked up? Is it a deterrent for others maybe?
By the way Paul, people are only charged with having false documents if they are committing a crime called smuggling or trafficking. It is not an offence for asylum seekers to use them. It is an offence for the public servants to make them up and then blame the refugees.
Posted by: Marilyn Shepherd at April 6, 2005 01:04 PM
David Grace, thanks for a reasoned argument in contrast to the other nonsense dished out in this thread. I agree this can be a difficult area but I also think your own argument contains the answers.
We are not a lawless or totalitarian state, regardless of what some other Webdiarists assert. By your own argument, this must surely curtail the relevance of the examples you gave. There are ample democratic means of trying to change the laws or practices to which Khristo objects (e.g.changing the law, demonstrations that don't damage property).
Is it being argued that these alternatives have been exhausted? And even if this is the case (which I don't accept it is) what does that justify?
As to whether Khristo et al intended to pull the whole fence down or whatever that is irrelevant. If I deliberately injure someone and they die due to a predisposition that I didn't know about I am still culpable for my action.
Finally, one person's principle is another persons extremist or unjustifiable cause. It's not that simple.
Posted by: Adrian Rees at April 6, 2005 01:14 PM
Paul Bickford, I challenge you to watch the Four Corners repeat on the ABC tonight about Cornelia Rau and tell me you still believe that the current mandatory detention process is not unnecessarily cruel and degrading to detainees.
I think you would have to admit afterwards that the process has a helluva lot more to do with deterrence than careful vetting of asylum seekers for refugee status. That may be fine from where you and I sit, but for the poor buggers caught up in the process it is a nightmare.
But on the subject of civil disobedience, I wonder why the media coverage of almost every protest I have ever seen is invariably skewed towards the police viewpoint. It seems to me that the mainstream media is inherently conservative and will always take a position of subtle outrage while pretending objectivity. The impression is always of a 'rent-a-crowd' of misfits whose only aim at these things is to fight with police. There is undoubtedly an element of this in many demonstrations, but I've been in a few and it's almost always a small minority who could be categorised in this way.
Margo, as a journalist do you have a view on this? Is it because journalists rely heavily on police contacts for so many of your stories? Conservatism? Or is it simply down to 'if it bleeds it leads'? Or have I got it wrong?
I know the media can completely distort an event from experience. Was anybody else here at the mass union rally in front of Parliament House a few hears back, the one in which a hundred or so CFMEU members tried to bash down the front doors? For the vast majority of the thousands of unionists who turned up it was a successful rally that sent a powerful message to Howard on his industrial relations reforms. Most people present would not even have known what happened up at the doors until they got home and switched on the TV.
Of course, almost all the media covered was of the melee at the doors, which wasn't pretty, and as a result the public image of the union movement suffered a huge setback. The violence WAS clearly newsworthy, but the way it was covered gave a hugely distorted view of the rally. My own mother was appalled that I had been there, assuming I had been up front fighting with cops (I hadn't).
The Baxter protests seem to be a similar story. Although, I have to say there was a tone of disbelief in the reporting of the confiscation of balloons because they were flying in 'restricted airspace'.
Margo: The short answer is editorial direction by people behind a desk in tandem with a narrow, conflict-based 'news judgement". If there's violence it's news, if there's not it ain't. Blame the protesters? Not that simple.
Posted by: david curry at April 6, 2005 01:24 PM
Robyn, if his story is true, he probably has grounds for refugee status; what evidence does he have to support his claims? In my experience every claimant I have dealt with has raised the spectre of torture straight after claiming asylum, as if scripted.
I have no problem with the idea of TPVs either - what's wrong with returning to your own country once the treat is gone? Many asylum seekers are educated and qualified, and would be of more assistance in reconstructing their country of origin than joining an already well-supplied professional workforce in Australia.
Margo, I also was arrested (twice) during the right to march campaign, and while I now think it a little silly the Bjelke-Petersen regime was out of control; it is only marginally worse than the current Beattie government when it comes to accountability, arbitrary action and blatant cronyism and corruption. I don't see many taking to the streets to protest.
Margo: Hi fellow right to marcher! I'm out of touch with Queensland politics, having left the State in my mid 20s, but I can't believe Beattie runs a police state, as Sir Joh did. Tell me it ain't true!
Posted by: Paul Bickford at April 6, 2005 01:33 PM
Khristo, hats off to you for daring to act on your beliefs. I was at the infamous Woomera protest in 2002, and still feel like a coward for not risking my freedom to smuggle out a refugee.
So called "peaceful" protests have gotten us exactly NOWHERE in freeing the refugees. For those of you who believe Khristo's actions were "violent" - what's worse; tearing down a fence or incarcerating and brutalising asylum seekers for years on end behing razor wire?
It's easy for people who haven't seen the camps first hand to carry on about "queue jumpers", and how they should "wait their turn". But once you've been up to the razor wire, and directly seen refugees being tear gassed and beaten for NO REASON at all, it's cowardice to sit back and do nothing.
Azadi!
Posted by: K.Lawler at April 6, 2005 02:15 PM
Khristo, protesting is a brave thing to do. However, nothing really changes just because a few people stand outside and wave a few flags and shout a few slogans. If you want the attention of the politicians you speak in terms that they can understand-money.
Campaign contributions have always been a form of cogent and persuasive argument to any government. If you want "real" change, you work the system. If you want to improve the lives of refugees in detention, you can get interested parties to fund better facilities.
Tangible gains from affirmative action ; that is what brings about change, not revolution.
Posted by: Edmond Chu at April 6, 2005 02:20 PM
Robyn, I am not advocating that we stand by and do nothing, nor am I suggesting that we restrict ouselves to "legal" means, and yes, I am fully aware of the work that has been done behind the scenes.
But the point I am making is this. The protest that was undertaken at Baxter over Easter did NOTHING to help the cause of these people. It sent it backwards. If you want to think otherwise, fine.
You might like to go out and talk to people located in the mortgage belts of our capital cities. They will tell you that they agree with the Governemnt's policies and the treatment of detainees. And if you listen carefully, the language that you will hear will sound vaguely familiar to the Government/mainstream media propaganda.
In order to effect change you need to bring middle Australia with you. This means educating them as to what is happening, and making them realise that they are human beings just like us, and they deserve to be treated as such, not like animals. The Government has been very successful at portrying them otherwise. I am not against the idea of marching on Baxter. I just think it does the cause of the refugees no good at all.
Posted by: Steve Turbit at April 6, 2005 02:23 PM
Steve Turbit: "Don't ask me what you should change your plans to, but a change in strategy is badly needed." Sorry, Steve, it's just not good enough. If you want to assert that strong action will confuse people and blow our chances of changing public opinion, you'll need a smidgin of evidence.
Just how exactly is public opinion going to change by keeping quiet, keeping in our place? In case you haven't noticed Steve, our place is to oil and maintain the machinery that puts so many innocents in mandatory detention.
Just how exactly do you propose to change public opinion? What is your plan Steve, because you'll need one. Public opinion is a very slippery animal.
I know what Khristo's plan is - to communicate as powerfully as he can with all people by taking up the key symbols and signs of the injustice he seeks resolution for. Law, suffering, respect, practical steps towards freedom. Require people's attention. I think Khristo's plan might just work, and you won't even tell me what your plan is.
Posted by: Bryan Law at April 6, 2005 02:23 PM
NVDA is based on moral force and a personal willingness to pay a price for bringing forth justice. The question is not "whether or not" one ought to destroy property when it is used in the commission of injustice. It's "under what circumstances" ought such property be destroyed. In other words how effective will the act be in bringing about the necessary change?
Think about the circumstances at Baxter, with grown-up Star Force officers lunging forth to [cackling laughter here] burst the children's balloons. What heroes.
The media is full of allegations of property damage and violence by protestors (with balloons). Khristo and his friends achieve a calm, deliberate nonviolent action which will reverbrate for weeks and months.
On the other hand, property schmoperty - get over it.
Posted by: Bryan Law at April 6, 2005 02:30 PM
Well Brad, it has always seemed odd to me that we can talk loudly about "free" markets and level playing fields while our borders remain so impermeable. Countries like the Congo and Zambia are trying to cope with refugee:citizen ratios of 1:30 - 1:40 whereas ours is about 1:800. The luxury of a sea border! We can afford to be a lot more generous than we are currently.
Posted by: Robyn Clothier at April 6, 2005 02:38 PM
Since when do UN conventions over-rule statute? Your lack of legal knowledge is becoming apparent; as to keeping the remaining detainees as a "deterrent", that claim is a paranoid fantasy. I'm sure the Commonwealth loves spending a poultice on detention for publicity in places where such detention wouldn't rate a mention. A better display of resolve would be quick repatriation; most of the detainees held who are not pending removal still have appeals running. The main reason the Commonwealth don't choose to prosecute is that it would slow up the repatriation even more, with the time involved in preparation of a brief, getting a hearing and the inevitable adjournments.
Posted by: Paul Bickford at April 6, 2005 02:41 PM
Bill Avent: "How can toy balloons endanger helicopter pilots?"
Well, here's pilot who got killed because there was snow in his chopper's air intake nacelle. I mean, snow!
An investigation revealed that small quantities of snow inside the intake could cause engine failure.
I can easily imagine any foreign object getting inside the air intake, or any lenght of twine or cord getting around the tail-rotor could case a catastrophic failure.
Alternatively, Bill, I suppose if you were inside a chopper and some dickwad got underneath it and let a kite or a balloon float toward the rotors or engine, you wouldn't care? Like, yeah right.
(Maybe we could write to Myth Busters and get them to check it. Like, I so loved watching them firing a thawed chicken right through the perspex windschield of a Cessna 150 at a measly 110mph.)
Posted by: C Parsons at April 6, 2005 02:47 PM
Paul, I don't know the details of his case well enough to know exactly what evidence he put forward to DIMIA. I do know that a lot of the Iranians were denied access to legal representatives when they detained at Pt Hedland & were reluctant to say too much because of the Memorandum of Understanding that exists between Australia and Iran. This was counted against them when they filled out their stories later on. The evidence of his enormous grief & his struggle to remain whole psychologically is enough to convince me of his story.
Posted by: Robyn Clothier at April 6, 2005 03:16 PM
Own goal to Paul Bickford for his comment that people opposed to mandatory detention believe that "no-one should ever be detained, no matter what horror they have perpetrated". Aside from the ridiculous notion that there are all these lefties out there believing that "no-one should ever be detained" under any cicumstances, his dramatic flourish about the horror they have perpetrated exemplifies the lefties point.
What horror, Paul? What horrific crimes have these people committed?
When were they charged? And more importantly, when did the heavy mallet come down declare them 'guilty'?
Seeking asylum is not a crime. Fleeing from horror and building a better life for your family is what this great country is built upon.
What horror did your ancestors flee from, Paul?
Posted by: Caitlin Johnstone at April 6, 2005 03:28 PM
Steve, I am part of middle Australia. I'm a "housewife" - 47 years old (today in fact!) I do as much talking as I can. I was at Baxter (staying safely out of trouble, although that was pretty much down to luck) & still haven't really decided if it was effective.
But the government's spin doctors have been so successful, I think it will take something very dramatic along the lines of Khristo's action to get them to really look properly at this issue.
Posted by: Robyn Clothier at April 6, 2005 03:37 PM
So who is the greater criminal here. A Prime Minister who illegally invaded a soveriegn nation in a war in which thousands have died, or Khristo with his bent fence?
Posted by: Michael de Angelos at April 6, 2005 04:05 PM
The Qld Police are a very mild outfit these days, except when dealing with motoring miscreants, and there's no more Special Branch. The current Qld government, however, is possibly even more inept and bent than Joh at his worst, and uses a tame CMC to gloss over any malfeasance they get sprung for.
As to the 4 Corners item, certainly detention centres aren't the Hilton, but I don't recall Buchenwald having airconditioning, cable tv, catering or the freedom to leave at any time. I see primary responsibility in the Rau case lying with the psychiatric unit that let her go in the first place, secondly with her family for belatedly doing bugger all to track her down and thirdly the person in question (she's relegated to third due to diminished responsibility).
As to the "witnesses", highly reliable sources - convicted prisoners, deportees, family members (with legal representation) and disgruntled former employees. A recently posted quote by you, Margo, is fitting in this case: "The short answer is editorial direction by people behind a desk in tandem with a narrow, conflict-based 'news judgement."
It was clearly an agenda-driven polemic with little interest in the facts of the case, and a big interest in giving DIMEA a kicking. Certainly they were sloppy, but probably the least so of the myriad agencies involved.
Posted by: Paul Bickford at April 6, 2005 04:06 PM
C Parsons, did you ever stand under a helicopter? Hold onto your hat if ever you do. Their rotors create enormous downthrust. I can't imagine how a kite or a balloon could come near them. If I was flying a kite and some dickwad in a helicopter came near, I would think he was trying to destroy my kite. I can believe the snow story, but it's a pretty freakish accident. Hundreds of helicopters must fly in snowy conditions every day.
Posted by: Bill Avent at April 6, 2005 04:09 PM
As usual, taken out of context. As there are many people who believe that no-one should be in immigration detention, there are many who believe every jail is full to the brim with meek innocents, railroaded by an uncaring and arbitrary system; even those who are guilty are victims of their circumstances, and as such should not be incarcerated but counselled. As to the horror fled by my ancestors, I have no idea being about sixth generation Anglo-Scots extraction; I could only imagine it is the horror that still exists and is called Britain.
Posted by: Paul Bickford at April 6, 2005 04:49 PM
Bryan Law, when did I suggest that we "should just keep quiet, keep in our place"? Of course we should fight this, but getting some results would be handy. And so far, after about five years of marching on the detention centres intermittently absolutely nothing has been achieved.
Since when is marching on a detention centre and ripping down some fences an example of "strong action"? And why do I have to "prove" anything to you with "evidence"? We are not in a court of law.
This issue has been burning now for almost five years. Numerous polls still suggest that sympathy with refugees in the detention centres runs at about 1:4, and this is despite the fact that there have been numerous protests at Baxter, Woomera before that and Port Hedland and nothing has changed! So how can you tell me "this just might be the right way" when it hasn't shown any signs so far of doing so?
Sorry Bryan, but suggesting that marching on Baxter detention centre is going to get those people out of there or stop the detention of refugees is pure smug self-aggrandising fantasy. You'll have to do better. The feeling that you are doing something noble or taking "strong action" might make you feel warm and fuzzy for a while, but you might like to go out and talk to people in the mrotgage belts in the capital cities and you will hear them say "those people protesting at Baxter are always doing these sorts of things and they are just a bunch of hippies with nothing better to do and why don't they get a job and why should we let these people out when they are "illegals" and these people don't deserve our sympathy because they smash our lovely facilities up that we provide for them and their supporters are just as bad becuase they break things like fences too and lots of them aren't really refugees and why do they have to jump the queue why can't they wait their turn like everybody else and who knows they could be terrorists, etc., etc." Heard this somewhere before? Government? Media? It is these sorts of ignorant attitudes that we have to change before we manage to change government policy and get these people released. It is our duty to change these attitudes and the only way is education.
And you think I am making this up? This is just the mild stuff. I worked in a pollie's office at the time of the "Tampa" incident. The day Labor voted down Howard's "Border Protection" bill we got some of the most shocking, disgusting bile shouted down the telephone at us, it was hard to believe that we were living in a civilised society. After much manipualtion by the government, people showed how they truly felt. Opinion has changed very little on the subject.
Strong action? My arse!
Posted by: Steve Turbit at April 6, 2005 05:07 PM
The boatloads of folks who arrived in Australia around 1788 were "illegal arrivals". Over to those of you who hold on to the notion that arriving on Australian shores to seek asylum and those who come without any ID papers, are entering Australia "illegally".
Posted by: Jack H Smit at April 6, 2005 05:10 PM
A solid leftist report on the protest is here.
Posted by: Damian Doyle at April 6, 2005 05:42 PM
Paul, you are being so outrageously provocative in your posts that I really should just ignore them. But I have to bite. Freedom to leave at any time? Excuse me?
Presumably you're referring to an asylum seeker's right to volunteer to return to the country they fled from. If a person has left another country because of a well-founded fear of persecution and all the horrendous things that can go along with that in countries like Iran, are you seriously suggesting that repatriation is an option? If you're not referring to that nonsensical option then you're plain wrong: you are not free to leave an immigration detention centre.
And if we're going to start using Buchenwald as our benchmark for humane treatment, then I suggest we've sunk pretty low!
If you think spending four years in detention is a picnic I suggest you look at what people more qualified than your or me say about what it does to detainees (try here for starters).
On the Four Corners comments, you're welcome to cast aspersions on the cast of witnesses (which also included psychiatrists, a nun, and a senior manager from Glenfield Psychiatric Hospital, from memory) but I defy you to find an official denial of the central damaging claims about the way Rau was treated e.g. kept for 21 hours a day in isolation for days at a time as a 'management' tool.
It's interesting, don't you think, that the Government didn't want an open enquiry into the Cornelia Rau case? Or am I just succumbing to 'paranoid fantasy'?
Posted by: David Curry at April 6, 2005 05:56 PM
I am a strong supporter of Khristo's cause; I was at the Easter protests at Woomera in 2002. My account of that protest is still up here but most of the URLs referred to in it are out of date.
But I still think pulling down the fences was the wrong thing to do. Not morally wrong; tactically wrong.
The only way we're going to end the brutal insanity that is the current detention regime is by convincing the bulk of the Australian electorate that what's being done in their names is wrong.
Direct actions like this, "symbolic" or otherwise, won't do a damned thing to achieve that aim. If anything, they work against it; they allow the government and right-wing media to portray refugee supporters as a bunch of anarchist loonies (with some justification; significant portions of the Woomera protesters were extremist twits looking for a fight). Much of the campaigning done by the activist left does nothing but discredit the causes they're supposedly fighting for.
Convergences and Direct Actions do a lot to give radical activists an excuse for a party and to feel good about themselves, but very little to actually change what's happening. We need to figure out how to communicate with middle Australia, how to reach out to the mortgage-holding parents in the 'burbs and make them realise what's really going on. Their votes are the only way we can stop this.
How do we effectively do that? I don't know; if I did, I'd be doing it already. But I do know that pulling down fences in the middle of the desert isn't it.
Posted by: Craig Motbey at April 6, 2005 06:46 PM
Bill, releasing Balloons in restricted airspace, when you know there are helicopters flying overhead is dangerous. Released in quantity, as they were, can foul rotors or intakes, block pilot's vision and cause accidents. The protesters have been reported to have discussed this as a way of disrupting helicopter operations. You are trying to defend the indefensible. These are the same type of people who throw marbles under horse's feet.
There are
