The Electronic Intifada 22 December, 2007
I am feeling optimistic about Palestine.
I know it sounds crazy. How can I use "optimistic" and "Palestine" in the same sentence when conditions on the ground only seem to get worse? Israeli settlements continue to expand on a daily basis, the checkpoints and segregated road system are becoming more and more institutionalized, more than 10,000 Palestinian political prisoners are being held in Israeli jails, Gaza is under heavy attack and the borders are entirely controlled by Israel, preventing people from getting their most basic human needs met.
We can never forget these things and the daily suffering of the people, and yet I dare to say that I am optimistic. Why? Ehud Olmert. Let me clarify. Better yet, let's let him clarify:
"The day will come when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights. As soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."
That's right, the Prime Minister of Israel is currently trying to negotiate a "two-state solution" specifically because he realizes that if he doesn't, Palestinians might begin to demand, en masse, equal rights to Israelis. Furthermore, he worries, the world might begin to see Israel as an apartheid state. In actuality, most of the world already sees Israel this way, but Olmert is worried that even Israel's most ardent supporters will begin to catch up with the rest of the world.
"The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," he told Haaretz, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."
Perhaps Olmert is giving American Jews too much credit here, but he does expose a basic contradiction in the minds of most American people, Jewish and not: most of us -- at least in theory -- support equal rights for all residents of a country. Most of us do not support rights given on the basis of ethnicity and religion, especially when the ethnicity/religion being prioritized is one that excludes the vast majority of the country's indigenous population. We cannot, of course, forget the history of ethnic cleansing of indigenous people on the American continent. But we must not use the existence of past atrocities to justify present ones.
I am optimistic not because I think the process of ethnic cleansing and apartheid in Israel/Palestine is going to end tomorrow, but because I can feel the ideology behind these policies beginning to collapse. For years the true meaning of political Zionism has been as ignored as its effects on Palestinian daily life. And suddenly it is beginning to break open. Olmert's comments last week are reminiscent of those of early Zionist leaders who talked openly of transfer and ethnic cleansing in order to create an artificial Jewish majority in historic Palestine.
We must expel the Arabs and take their places and if we have to use force to guarantee our own right to settle in those places -- then we have force at our disposal. - David Ben-Gurion, Israel's "founding father" and first prime minister, 1937
So this idea of a "two-state solution" a la Olmert -- which I would argue provides neither a "state" nor a "solution" for the Palestinian people -- is the new transfer. It is no longer popular in the world to openly discuss expulsion (though there are political parties in Israel that advocate this), but Olmert hopes that by creating a Palestinian "state" on a tiny portion of historic Palestine, he can accomplish the same goal: maintaining an ethno-religious state exclusively for the Jewish people in most of historic Palestine. His plan, as all other plans Israeli leaders have tried to "negotiate," ignores the basic rights of the two-thirds of the Palestinian population who are refugees. They, like all other refugees in the world, have the internationally recognized right to return to their lands and receive compensation for loss and damages. This should not be up for negotiation.
So why am I optimistic? Why do I think Olmert will fail, if not in the short term, at least in the long term? There are many signs.
The first and most important is that Palestinian people are holding on. Sometimes by a thread, but holding on nonetheless. Despite the hope of many in Israel, Palestinians will not disappear. They engage in daily acts of nonviolent resistance, from demonstrations against the wall and land confiscation, to simply remaining in their homes against all odds. Young people are joining organizations designed to preserve their culture and identity. Older Palestinians have said to me, "We lived through the Ottoman Empire, we lived through the British Mandate, we lived through Jordanian rule, and we will live through Israeli occupation." This too shall pass.
In Israel, it seems that within the traditional "Zionist left," Jewish Israelis are beginning to have open conversations about the exclusivity of Zionism as a political ideology, and are questioning it more and more.
In the US, I have been traveling around speaking to groups about Palestine, and they get it. Even those whose prior information has come only from US mainstream media, when they hear what is actually happening, they get it. When we explain the difference between being Jewish (a religion or ethnicity), Israeli (a citizenship), and Zionist (an ideology), people understand.
"Does Israel have a right to exist?" people ask. What does that mean? Do countries really have rights, or do people have rights? The Jewish people have a right to exist, the Israeli people have a right to exist, but what does "Israel" mean? Israel defines itself as the state of the Jewish people. It is not a state of its citizens. It is a state of many people who are not its citizens, like myself, and is not the state of many people who are its citizens, like the 20 percent of its population that is Palestinian. So if we ask a Palestinian person, "Do you recognize the right for there to be a country on your historic homeland that explicitly excludes you?" what kind of response should we expect?
So when Olmert warns that we will "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights" and that "the state of Israel [will be] finished," I get a little flutter of excitement. I think of the 171 Palestinian organizations who have called on the international community to begin campaigns of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel until Israel complies with international law. This is already a South African-style struggle, and we outside of Palestine need to do our part. Especially those of us who live in the US, the country that gives Israel more than $10 million every single day, must take responsibility for the atrocities committed in our name and with our money.
Ultimately, this is our role as Americans. It is to begin campaigns in our churches, synagogues, mosques, universities, cities, unions, etc. It is not to broker false negotiations between occupier and occupied, and it is not to muse over solutions the way I have above. But one can dream. And as a Jewish-American, I know that while it might be scary to some, while it will require a lot of imagination, the end of Israel as a Jewish state could mean the beginning of democracy, human rights, and some semblance of justice in a land that has almost forgotten what that means.
Hannah Mermelstein is co-founder and co-director of Birthright Unplugged, which takes mostly Jewish North American people into the West Bank to meet with Palestinian people and to equip them to return to their own communities and work for justice; and takes Palestinian children from refugee camps to Jerusalem, the sea, and the villages their grandparents fled in 1948, and supports them to document their experiences and create photography exhibits to share with their communities and with the world. Anna Baltzer helped contribute to this article.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Is peace just an absence of war?
Cindy Sheehan
CommonDreams, December 8, 2007
That question begs another question: What is war?
Is war a “hot” conflict with bombs raining down on civilians? Is it covert action with undercover agents fomenting unrest and electoral rebellion? Is it crippling sanctions that target unarmed and un-protected civilians who become desperate for medicine when their child is dying of dysentery or hungry for food to fend off starvation?
Is war maintaining a large standing army and an over-bloated Ministry of War even in peacetime? Is war destroying our precarious environment for the sake of a comparative few to the detriment of the many? Is war recklessly using natural resources when there is a limited supply and many people are killed or enslaved so others can have diamond engagement rings or cheap crap at Wal-Mart?
I believe there is always an undeclared war on poor people all over the world and the establishment’s goal is to use any means violent, covert, or criminal to make the poor, poorer; the rich, richer; and to eliminate an educated, healthy, and vibrant middle class that is a threat to the fascist-elite way of life but essential for true freedom and democracy.
So then what is a meaningful definition of peace? Peace is an existential state where individuals are not only free from bombs raining down on their heads and an absence of planes flying into buildings, but where every person enjoys the basic human rights of security, prosperity, a good and free education, plentiful food, accessible healthcare, clean water and a clean planet free from catastrophic global climate change and overwhelming pollution.
John Lennon, who was so wrongly taken away from us 27 years ago today, is an icon for peace who strived and struggled for a true peace with his talent and with his resources. His songs, and refrains particularly: Power to the People, Imagine, and War is Over, and Give Peace a Chance are anthems for our modern peace movement. Imagine (on which I have written before) is a manifesto to a Utopian world where true peace is the paradigm and constant war as a foreign policy tool is abolished.
It is a tragedy in our world that we oftentimes marginalize or kill our peacemakers. I often dream of where our world would be today if people like Gandhi, John Lennon, MLK, Jr., or Bobby Kennedy (a later in life convert to peace) would not have been assassinated, or what would happen if we, their survivors, had made more meaning out of their violent, meaningless and senseless deaths. Would we be closer to state of utopia (or Nutopia) that John Lennon dreamed of?
John’s widow, Yoko Ono Lennon, has been very tireless in striving for world peace and in continuing her husband’s legacy. I know that my work for peace began when I wanted to make meaning out of my son’s senseless and violent death at the hands of the war pigs.
We cannot let their deaths be in vain!
It was in the season of peace that John Lennon was killed, when instead of a frenzy of shopping and an orgy of eating, we should all be reflecting on elevating the situation of our less fortunate brothers and sisters to bring peace to our part of the world that will have a ripple effect that spreads worldwide.
At the request of Yoko, let’s make today a day of reflecting on true peace. Take a few moments at 11:15 EST and remember John and what he gave the world and what his legacy should be.
Imagine peace, then go out and make peace.
Please visit Imagine Peace sometime today for inspiring videos and down loadable artwork.
CommonDreams, December 8, 2007
That question begs another question: What is war?
Is war a “hot” conflict with bombs raining down on civilians? Is it covert action with undercover agents fomenting unrest and electoral rebellion? Is it crippling sanctions that target unarmed and un-protected civilians who become desperate for medicine when their child is dying of dysentery or hungry for food to fend off starvation?
Is war maintaining a large standing army and an over-bloated Ministry of War even in peacetime? Is war destroying our precarious environment for the sake of a comparative few to the detriment of the many? Is war recklessly using natural resources when there is a limited supply and many people are killed or enslaved so others can have diamond engagement rings or cheap crap at Wal-Mart?
I believe there is always an undeclared war on poor people all over the world and the establishment’s goal is to use any means violent, covert, or criminal to make the poor, poorer; the rich, richer; and to eliminate an educated, healthy, and vibrant middle class that is a threat to the fascist-elite way of life but essential for true freedom and democracy.
So then what is a meaningful definition of peace? Peace is an existential state where individuals are not only free from bombs raining down on their heads and an absence of planes flying into buildings, but where every person enjoys the basic human rights of security, prosperity, a good and free education, plentiful food, accessible healthcare, clean water and a clean planet free from catastrophic global climate change and overwhelming pollution.
John Lennon, who was so wrongly taken away from us 27 years ago today, is an icon for peace who strived and struggled for a true peace with his talent and with his resources. His songs, and refrains particularly: Power to the People, Imagine, and War is Over, and Give Peace a Chance are anthems for our modern peace movement. Imagine (on which I have written before) is a manifesto to a Utopian world where true peace is the paradigm and constant war as a foreign policy tool is abolished.
It is a tragedy in our world that we oftentimes marginalize or kill our peacemakers. I often dream of where our world would be today if people like Gandhi, John Lennon, MLK, Jr., or Bobby Kennedy (a later in life convert to peace) would not have been assassinated, or what would happen if we, their survivors, had made more meaning out of their violent, meaningless and senseless deaths. Would we be closer to state of utopia (or Nutopia) that John Lennon dreamed of?
John’s widow, Yoko Ono Lennon, has been very tireless in striving for world peace and in continuing her husband’s legacy. I know that my work for peace began when I wanted to make meaning out of my son’s senseless and violent death at the hands of the war pigs.
We cannot let their deaths be in vain!
It was in the season of peace that John Lennon was killed, when instead of a frenzy of shopping and an orgy of eating, we should all be reflecting on elevating the situation of our less fortunate brothers and sisters to bring peace to our part of the world that will have a ripple effect that spreads worldwide.
At the request of Yoko, let’s make today a day of reflecting on true peace. Take a few moments at 11:15 EST and remember John and what he gave the world and what his legacy should be.
Imagine peace, then go out and make peace.
Please visit Imagine Peace sometime today for inspiring videos and down loadable artwork.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Advent journey to peace (Part One)
Posted on Nov 28, 2007 09:57am CST.
On the Road to Peace by John Dear S.J. Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Vol. 2, No. 14
Sunday is the beginning of Advent, my favorite liturgical season, a time of prayer, preparation, hope and peace. I suggest we look to Mary, Jesus' teacher of peace and nonviolence, for clues over the next few weeks about how to welcome anew the God of peace. The Gospel of Luke portrays the Advent journey to peace in the three movements: first with the Annunciation as a scene of contemplative nonviolence, which leads to the Visitation as a scene of active nonviolence, and finally the Magificant, is the epitome of prophetic nonviolence, the groundwork for Jesus' great sermon.
According to the Gospel of Luke (1:26-38), the Advent of the nonviolent Jesus begins in this first movement with prayer, solitude, silence, attentive listening, and steadfast waiting for God's word of peace. Mary is a contemplative, a person of quiet prayer and solitude. She sits listening attentively to God, and dwells in the peace of God. In that silence and stillness, she is ready for God to speak.
That's the beginning of the journey to peace. Every day, we too can take time to sit in silence and solitude, in contemplative prayer, and listen for God. When we do, oddly enough, we notice once again the violence within us, whatever keeps us unpeaceful. The prayer of peace begins by noticing that inner violence and giving it all -- all our anger, resentments, hurts, wounds, bitterness, and hatreds -- to God, so that God will disarm our hearts and give us the gift of peace. As we practice this contemplative nonviolence and let go of our violence, we become more and more peaceful like Mary. We make peace with ourselves so that we are at peace within ourselves and with all creation, and ready for the coming of the God of peace.
In the story of the Annunciation, the angel tells Mary that she is to welcome a savior whose reign of peace will never end. Mary realizes the political implications of this announcement. God is taking sides, not with the rich and the powerful, the imperial warmakers or religious authorities, but with an unwed refugee woman. Mary does not rejoice at this news. She is terrified and confused. She does not understand this, but she knows it could be dangerous and costly. Here is another clue for Advent. When God enters our lives, we become afraid and disturbed. The God of peace comes to end the culture of war, to disarm the warmakers, and dismantle the empire. This work of God will be dangerous and costly for those who serve God. It may be helpful to sit with our fears and our confusion, before we take a new step forward on the Advent journey of creative nonviolence.
Afraid and confused, nonetheless, Mary says yes to the God of peace. How does she do it? How can we?
The answer lies in her response. "Behold," says Mary, "I am the servant of the God of peace. May it be done to me according to your word." Mary says yes to God because she knows who she is. She announces to the angel that she, Mary, is the servant of the God of peace. It doesn't matter what she thinks, how afraid she is, or how confusing the journey appears. She will do whatever the God of peace wants because she is the servant of the God of peace. She roots her identity completely in the God of peace. Because she is firmly rooted in God, she accepts whatever God wants of her. That's that.
This self-understanding is at the heart of the spirituality of peace and nonviolence. No matter what the culture tells us about ourselves, no matter how it labels us as Americans, consumers, or soldiers, we see ourselves first and foremost as servants of the God of peace; more, as God's very sons and daughters. Only then can we transcend our fears and confusion and questions. Only then will we be able to welcome God's reign of peace on earth.
Claiming this core identity begins with sitting in peace, becoming comfortable with the climate of peace, befriending the God of peace, and discovering our true selves as children of peace. Once we claim our core identities as servants of peace, as children of peace, we too will say yes to the God of peace. We will accept anything God wants; we will take any risk for peace. We know that we are sons and daughters of the God of peace, that our security and future lie with our beloved God, and so we will do whatever God asks.
This Advent, we might ask ourselves: Can we say yes to the God of peace with the same faith, hope and trust as Mary? Do we really want the God of peace to come to us? Dare we pursue and herald the coming of a new culture of peace? Have we grown content with the culture of violence? Comfortable with the big business of corporate greed and imperial war? Dare we allow the nonviolent Jesus to disrupt our settled ways and set us on a new disruptive path, as Mary did?
Can we surrender ourselves once again to the God of peace, with the selfless courage and daring faith and bold hope of Mary of Nazareth? I believe we can. We can say yes to the God of peace, and let the chips fall where they may, trusting that, in the long run, the fruit, the outcome, the finale, will be glorious, that like Mary, we too will blessed, we too will be peacemakers, we too will be heralds of a new world without war, poverty, racism, sexism, violence or nuclear weapons.
The Annunciation invites us to become contemplatives of nonviolence, mystics of nonviolence, like Mary. The whole point of prayer, contemplation and mysticism, is not so that we can hurt others, or bomb others, or dominate the world, but so that we can commune with the living God of peace and live in peace with everyone on earth, our very sisters and brothers.
This Advent, we pray, "God, I surrender myself to you once again. Take my life. Use me for your work of disarmament, justice, and the healing of creation. Open my life to your holy disturbances, my career to your holy upheaval, my plans to your disruptive love. You, God of peace, are all the matters. Peace on earth is my greatest hope, my most important work-the meaning of my sojourn. Take me, God of peace. Do with me as you will. Make me too an instrument of your peace. Let me be part of your reign of peace, of your nonviolent coming into the world."
Once we say yes to the God of peace in our contemplative nonviolence, we too will rush off like Mary, on the second stage of Advent, to serve those in need, to love our neighbors, and to practice active nonviolence.
On the Road to Peace by John Dear S.J. Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Vol. 2, No. 14
Sunday is the beginning of Advent, my favorite liturgical season, a time of prayer, preparation, hope and peace. I suggest we look to Mary, Jesus' teacher of peace and nonviolence, for clues over the next few weeks about how to welcome anew the God of peace. The Gospel of Luke portrays the Advent journey to peace in the three movements: first with the Annunciation as a scene of contemplative nonviolence, which leads to the Visitation as a scene of active nonviolence, and finally the Magificant, is the epitome of prophetic nonviolence, the groundwork for Jesus' great sermon.
According to the Gospel of Luke (1:26-38), the Advent of the nonviolent Jesus begins in this first movement with prayer, solitude, silence, attentive listening, and steadfast waiting for God's word of peace. Mary is a contemplative, a person of quiet prayer and solitude. She sits listening attentively to God, and dwells in the peace of God. In that silence and stillness, she is ready for God to speak.
That's the beginning of the journey to peace. Every day, we too can take time to sit in silence and solitude, in contemplative prayer, and listen for God. When we do, oddly enough, we notice once again the violence within us, whatever keeps us unpeaceful. The prayer of peace begins by noticing that inner violence and giving it all -- all our anger, resentments, hurts, wounds, bitterness, and hatreds -- to God, so that God will disarm our hearts and give us the gift of peace. As we practice this contemplative nonviolence and let go of our violence, we become more and more peaceful like Mary. We make peace with ourselves so that we are at peace within ourselves and with all creation, and ready for the coming of the God of peace.
In the story of the Annunciation, the angel tells Mary that she is to welcome a savior whose reign of peace will never end. Mary realizes the political implications of this announcement. God is taking sides, not with the rich and the powerful, the imperial warmakers or religious authorities, but with an unwed refugee woman. Mary does not rejoice at this news. She is terrified and confused. She does not understand this, but she knows it could be dangerous and costly. Here is another clue for Advent. When God enters our lives, we become afraid and disturbed. The God of peace comes to end the culture of war, to disarm the warmakers, and dismantle the empire. This work of God will be dangerous and costly for those who serve God. It may be helpful to sit with our fears and our confusion, before we take a new step forward on the Advent journey of creative nonviolence.
Afraid and confused, nonetheless, Mary says yes to the God of peace. How does she do it? How can we?
The answer lies in her response. "Behold," says Mary, "I am the servant of the God of peace. May it be done to me according to your word." Mary says yes to God because she knows who she is. She announces to the angel that she, Mary, is the servant of the God of peace. It doesn't matter what she thinks, how afraid she is, or how confusing the journey appears. She will do whatever the God of peace wants because she is the servant of the God of peace. She roots her identity completely in the God of peace. Because she is firmly rooted in God, she accepts whatever God wants of her. That's that.
This self-understanding is at the heart of the spirituality of peace and nonviolence. No matter what the culture tells us about ourselves, no matter how it labels us as Americans, consumers, or soldiers, we see ourselves first and foremost as servants of the God of peace; more, as God's very sons and daughters. Only then can we transcend our fears and confusion and questions. Only then will we be able to welcome God's reign of peace on earth.
Claiming this core identity begins with sitting in peace, becoming comfortable with the climate of peace, befriending the God of peace, and discovering our true selves as children of peace. Once we claim our core identities as servants of peace, as children of peace, we too will say yes to the God of peace. We will accept anything God wants; we will take any risk for peace. We know that we are sons and daughters of the God of peace, that our security and future lie with our beloved God, and so we will do whatever God asks.
This Advent, we might ask ourselves: Can we say yes to the God of peace with the same faith, hope and trust as Mary? Do we really want the God of peace to come to us? Dare we pursue and herald the coming of a new culture of peace? Have we grown content with the culture of violence? Comfortable with the big business of corporate greed and imperial war? Dare we allow the nonviolent Jesus to disrupt our settled ways and set us on a new disruptive path, as Mary did?
Can we surrender ourselves once again to the God of peace, with the selfless courage and daring faith and bold hope of Mary of Nazareth? I believe we can. We can say yes to the God of peace, and let the chips fall where they may, trusting that, in the long run, the fruit, the outcome, the finale, will be glorious, that like Mary, we too will blessed, we too will be peacemakers, we too will be heralds of a new world without war, poverty, racism, sexism, violence or nuclear weapons.
The Annunciation invites us to become contemplatives of nonviolence, mystics of nonviolence, like Mary. The whole point of prayer, contemplation and mysticism, is not so that we can hurt others, or bomb others, or dominate the world, but so that we can commune with the living God of peace and live in peace with everyone on earth, our very sisters and brothers.
This Advent, we pray, "God, I surrender myself to you once again. Take my life. Use me for your work of disarmament, justice, and the healing of creation. Open my life to your holy disturbances, my career to your holy upheaval, my plans to your disruptive love. You, God of peace, are all the matters. Peace on earth is my greatest hope, my most important work-the meaning of my sojourn. Take me, God of peace. Do with me as you will. Make me too an instrument of your peace. Let me be part of your reign of peace, of your nonviolent coming into the world."
Once we say yes to the God of peace in our contemplative nonviolence, we too will rush off like Mary, on the second stage of Advent, to serve those in need, to love our neighbors, and to practice active nonviolence.
Climate change: How Poorest Suffer Most
Paul Vallely
The Independent 28 November, 2007
Global warming is not a future apocalypse, but a present reality for many of the world's poorest people, according to the most hard-hitting United Nations report yet on climate change, published yesterday.
A catalogue of the "climate shocks" that have already hit the world is set out in the Human Development Report 2007/08. Fewer than two per cent of these have affected rich countries. Europe had its most intense heatwave for 50 years and Japan its greatest number of tropical cyclones in a single year. But far more intense drought, floods and storms than usual have plagued the developing world.
Monsoons displaced 14 million people in India, seven million in Bangladesh and three million in China which has seen the heaviest rainfall – and second highest death toll – since records began. Cyclones blasted Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. Hurricanes devastated the Caribbean and Central America, killing more than 1,600 Mayan people in Guatemala. Droughts have afflicted Africa, driving 14 million people from their homes.
In the rich world, insurers report a fivefold increase in climate-related insurance claims. In the poor world the cost is counted in terms of hidden human suffering, for most disasters are under-reported.
Based on new climate modelling, the UN report has a number of strong messages. It is highly critical of US, EU and British policies on global warming – it says the measures in Gordon Brown's Climate Change Bill are "not consistent with the objective of avoiding dangerous climate change".
However, its top-line message is that the fixation of campaigners like Al Gore with a long-term "we're all doomed" vision of global warming has diverted attention from more immediate threats.
Already, its new research shows, children born in Ethiopia in years of drought are 41 per cent more likely to be stunted from malnutrition than those born in a time of rains. That has already created two million more malnourished children – and this is not an affliction that is shaken off when the rains return. It creates cycles of life-long disadvantage.
The report shows how climate shocks force the poor to adopt emergency coping strategies – reduced nutrition, withdrawal of children from school, cuts in health spending – which damage the long-term health of entire societies.
After 150 years in which human well-being has steadily improved, the world is now facing the prospect that progress on indicators such as poverty, nutrition, literacy and infant mortality will be arrested. "It may even be reversed," said the report's lead author, Kevin Watkins, who was formerly head of research at Oxfam.
The report says George Bush's home-state of Texas (population 23 million) has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa (population 720 million).
The report also criticises Britain's policy on climate change. The UK is the world leader on rhetoric, it says, yet "if the rest of the developed world followed the pathway envisaged in the UK's Climate Change Bill, dangerous climate change would be inevitable".
The report says two things need to be done. Rich nations need to massively cut emissions (by at least 80 per cent) and developing and emerging nations need to make modest cuts (of around 20 per cent). Also, large amounts of money are needed to adapt to the consequences of climate change. Hardly anything is being spent in the poor world, where people were least responsible for global warming but suffer most. The amounts donated to the UN's climate change mitigation fund have been equivalent to only one week's worth of spending under the UK's flood defence programme.
© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
The Independent 28 November, 2007
Global warming is not a future apocalypse, but a present reality for many of the world's poorest people, according to the most hard-hitting United Nations report yet on climate change, published yesterday.
A catalogue of the "climate shocks" that have already hit the world is set out in the Human Development Report 2007/08. Fewer than two per cent of these have affected rich countries. Europe had its most intense heatwave for 50 years and Japan its greatest number of tropical cyclones in a single year. But far more intense drought, floods and storms than usual have plagued the developing world.
Monsoons displaced 14 million people in India, seven million in Bangladesh and three million in China which has seen the heaviest rainfall – and second highest death toll – since records began. Cyclones blasted Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. Hurricanes devastated the Caribbean and Central America, killing more than 1,600 Mayan people in Guatemala. Droughts have afflicted Africa, driving 14 million people from their homes.
In the rich world, insurers report a fivefold increase in climate-related insurance claims. In the poor world the cost is counted in terms of hidden human suffering, for most disasters are under-reported.
Based on new climate modelling, the UN report has a number of strong messages. It is highly critical of US, EU and British policies on global warming – it says the measures in Gordon Brown's Climate Change Bill are "not consistent with the objective of avoiding dangerous climate change".
However, its top-line message is that the fixation of campaigners like Al Gore with a long-term "we're all doomed" vision of global warming has diverted attention from more immediate threats.
Already, its new research shows, children born in Ethiopia in years of drought are 41 per cent more likely to be stunted from malnutrition than those born in a time of rains. That has already created two million more malnourished children – and this is not an affliction that is shaken off when the rains return. It creates cycles of life-long disadvantage.
The report shows how climate shocks force the poor to adopt emergency coping strategies – reduced nutrition, withdrawal of children from school, cuts in health spending – which damage the long-term health of entire societies.
After 150 years in which human well-being has steadily improved, the world is now facing the prospect that progress on indicators such as poverty, nutrition, literacy and infant mortality will be arrested. "It may even be reversed," said the report's lead author, Kevin Watkins, who was formerly head of research at Oxfam.
The report says George Bush's home-state of Texas (population 23 million) has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa (population 720 million).
The report also criticises Britain's policy on climate change. The UK is the world leader on rhetoric, it says, yet "if the rest of the developed world followed the pathway envisaged in the UK's Climate Change Bill, dangerous climate change would be inevitable".
The report says two things need to be done. Rich nations need to massively cut emissions (by at least 80 per cent) and developing and emerging nations need to make modest cuts (of around 20 per cent). Also, large amounts of money are needed to adapt to the consequences of climate change. Hardly anything is being spent in the poor world, where people were least responsible for global warming but suffer most. The amounts donated to the UN's climate change mitigation fund have been equivalent to only one week's worth of spending under the UK's flood defence programme.
© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Reflections-APEC Sydney 21 World Leaders, One Caged City!
This is a reflection received from Ciaron O'Reilly, Catholic Peace Activist.
Can we move from co-dependent protest to nonviolent resistance to this war?
George Bush has now departed on Air Force 1, another plane carrying 600 security and staffers, another plane carrying 10 bomb proof limos and also Doomsday Plane with 100 military ready to fight a nuclear war have gone. The emperor was in town, the paradigm has shifted in terms of what Australians are willing to live with in terms of the shrinking of civil liberties.
The 5km security fence is coming down. I attended the anti-war/APEC march on Saturday in Sydney. Freshly purchased water cannon deployed, robo cops in latest combat designer wear shoulder to shoulder with taser and mace, snipers on the roof and hanging out of choppers, the massive fear generating propoganda effort of the previous weeks had kept the Muslim community and many others away from paractising their democratic rights of dissent. See http://sydney.indymedia.org.au//
The crowd was passive, but the pumped up cops could not help themselves picking a few stragglers off at the start of the march and attacking the International Socialists rallying in the park. One Wobbly from Melbourne was picked up and extradited, he is still in custody.
On Saturday night I attended a wedding, a young man was about to be deployed to Afghanistan, two Labor ministers were seated at my table. It's a small world.
On Sunday, I walked in town and came across a group of gentle hippies with a drum who had been ordered out of the CBD. I made it all the way to the fence passed by squads of 12 cops marching through the ghost town of the city in formation. I had lunch in Hyde Park and was passed by three more squads marching around in circles in the empty park. I then headed to the Domain where Speakers Corner has operated since the 1870's. I got on a box and gave out with a chopper hovering above. Two ladies from Limerick stopped and remembered our effort at Shannon www.peaceontrial.com
Conservative PM Howard is on his way out. Labor leader Rudd on his way in claiminng an anti-war position in this most unpopular of wars where OZ troops have been deployed to Iraq without casualties thus far. Rudd met with Bush and assured him that although he would be withdrawing the 700 ground troops in a year's time (because it is all about preserving Australian lives not Iraqi) he will be leaving 700 Australian naval and air force personell in the theatre to help out with the U.S. indiscriminate bombing and killing of Iraqis. Pine Gap the NSA targetting base near Alice Springs is the most significant Australian military contribution to the war on iraq and does not rate a mention, it does not appear on the political radar. The irony deepens as Rudd parades Peter Garrett lead singer of the most popular and most left mainstream rock band of the '80's/'90's. He is a dissident cultural symbol that has made his peace with the presence of U.S. warfighting bases and the sale of Australian uranium to anyone who is buying.
The most dramatic act of resistance in the past week came from a popular comedy team The Chaser who dacced (pulled the trousers down) on the multimillion dollar security effort. Dressed as Bin Laden and with Canadian flags on their limos they were waved through 2 security checkpoints and the story went world wide........the Emperor Has No Clothes!
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/apec-security-sava...rists
Security does not come from waging illegal wars abroad and crushing civil liberites at home. Security comes from building peace and justice. A project Emperor Bush, present Prime Minister Howard and it looks like PM in waiting Rudd has no interest in. The state of the anti-war movement is not good. Can we move form co-dependent protest into proactive and nonviolent resistance in the spirit of Ghandi, King, the Pine Gap 4 www.pinegap6.org the dissidents in the military www.ivaw.org , those resisting in the U.S. www.jonahhouse.org ? That will depend on how serious we are about ending this war
Can we move from co-dependent protest to nonviolent resistance to this war?
George Bush has now departed on Air Force 1, another plane carrying 600 security and staffers, another plane carrying 10 bomb proof limos and also Doomsday Plane with 100 military ready to fight a nuclear war have gone. The emperor was in town, the paradigm has shifted in terms of what Australians are willing to live with in terms of the shrinking of civil liberties.
The 5km security fence is coming down. I attended the anti-war/APEC march on Saturday in Sydney. Freshly purchased water cannon deployed, robo cops in latest combat designer wear shoulder to shoulder with taser and mace, snipers on the roof and hanging out of choppers, the massive fear generating propoganda effort of the previous weeks had kept the Muslim community and many others away from paractising their democratic rights of dissent. See http://sydney.indymedia.org.au//
The crowd was passive, but the pumped up cops could not help themselves picking a few stragglers off at the start of the march and attacking the International Socialists rallying in the park. One Wobbly from Melbourne was picked up and extradited, he is still in custody.
On Saturday night I attended a wedding, a young man was about to be deployed to Afghanistan, two Labor ministers were seated at my table. It's a small world.
On Sunday, I walked in town and came across a group of gentle hippies with a drum who had been ordered out of the CBD. I made it all the way to the fence passed by squads of 12 cops marching through the ghost town of the city in formation. I had lunch in Hyde Park and was passed by three more squads marching around in circles in the empty park. I then headed to the Domain where Speakers Corner has operated since the 1870's. I got on a box and gave out with a chopper hovering above. Two ladies from Limerick stopped and remembered our effort at Shannon www.peaceontrial.com
Conservative PM Howard is on his way out. Labor leader Rudd on his way in claiminng an anti-war position in this most unpopular of wars where OZ troops have been deployed to Iraq without casualties thus far. Rudd met with Bush and assured him that although he would be withdrawing the 700 ground troops in a year's time (because it is all about preserving Australian lives not Iraqi) he will be leaving 700 Australian naval and air force personell in the theatre to help out with the U.S. indiscriminate bombing and killing of Iraqis. Pine Gap the NSA targetting base near Alice Springs is the most significant Australian military contribution to the war on iraq and does not rate a mention, it does not appear on the political radar. The irony deepens as Rudd parades Peter Garrett lead singer of the most popular and most left mainstream rock band of the '80's/'90's. He is a dissident cultural symbol that has made his peace with the presence of U.S. warfighting bases and the sale of Australian uranium to anyone who is buying.
The most dramatic act of resistance in the past week came from a popular comedy team The Chaser who dacced (pulled the trousers down) on the multimillion dollar security effort. Dressed as Bin Laden and with Canadian flags on their limos they were waved through 2 security checkpoints and the story went world wide........the Emperor Has No Clothes!
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/apec-security-sava...rists
Security does not come from waging illegal wars abroad and crushing civil liberites at home. Security comes from building peace and justice. A project Emperor Bush, present Prime Minister Howard and it looks like PM in waiting Rudd has no interest in. The state of the anti-war movement is not good. Can we move form co-dependent protest into proactive and nonviolent resistance in the spirit of Ghandi, King, the Pine Gap 4 www.pinegap6.org the dissidents in the military www.ivaw.org , those resisting in the U.S. www.jonahhouse.org ? That will depend on how serious we are about ending this war
Friday, September 14, 2007
Good News _UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted.
Good news!!
I hasten to share joyful news with all of you who have worked hard and long with our Indigenous sisters and brothers to see justice done for them.
I have just returned from the General Assembly chamber of the United Nations after witnessing an historic vote. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by vote with 143 in favour, 4 against and 11 abstentions.
Australia distinguished itself by leading the charge against the Declaration. However it turned out to be a charge that lacked credibility and energy. Australia was joined by only three countries - Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America.
Australia, which Ambassador Hill presented to other UN member states as a champion of indigenous rights, brought forth 6 ‘arguments’ as to why it could not accept the Declaration. Self-determination; lands and resources; free, prior and informed consent; intellectual property rights; placing customary law above national law and no acknowledgement of third party rights of access to indigenous lands. No “undefined sub-group” can have the right to veto government decisions.
Of course each of these straw men had long ago been explored, negotiated and addressed by governments and indigenous representatives. The fact that 143 other sovereign states did not find the declaration to pose a threat to their constitutions, national laws of sovereignty obvious had no persuasive power for Australia and its few friends.
Another Australian NGO representative who was present said: ‘I feel ashamed to be an Australian’.
I add statements by Les Malezer, Chairperson of the Global Indigenous Caucus and by Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the UN.
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN, GLOBAL INDIGENOUS CAUCUS
By Les Malezer, 13 September 2007
The adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the United Nations marks a momentous and historic occasion for both Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations.
One quarter of a century ago the United Nations agreed that the situation of indigenous peoples around the world was so desperate and consistently exploited, that it warranted international attention.
Within a few years of brief examination and assessment, the United Nations decided that a human rights standard on the rights of indigenous peoples was required.
Simultaneously, the indigenous peoples of the world were uniting, because of our increasing capacity to communicate to each other, but also out of necessity to achieve an international voice.
Together we found out that Indigenous Peoples around the world shared a common situation of loss of control of our lands, territories and resources and a history of colonisation.
The Declaration, as a deposition, represents a meeting of authorities, i.e. the United Nations and the indigenous peoples. Today’s adoption of the Declaration occurs because the United Nations and the Indigenous Peoples have found the common will to achieve this outcome.
The Declaration does not represent solely the viewpoint of the United Nations, nor does it represent solely the viewpoint of the Indigenous Peoples.
It is a Declaration which combines our views and interests and which sets the framework for the future. It is a tool for peace and justice, based upon mutual recognition and mutual respect.
We emphasise once again that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contains no new provisions of human rights. It affirms many rights already contained in international human rights treaties, but rights which have been denied to the Indigenous Peoples.
As Indigenous Peoples we now see a guarantee that our rights to self determination, to our lands and territories, to our cultural identities, to our own representation and to our values and beliefs
will be respected at the international level.
The Declaration is a framework for States to link and integrate with the Indigenous Peoples, to initiate new and positive relations but this time without exclusion, without discrimination and without exploitation.
These rights in the Declaration are already recognised in international law, but they are rights which have been denied to Indigenous Peoples everywhere.
They are rights which are seen by Indigenous Peoples as essential to our successful survival, dignity and well-being, and to maintain our strong cultural and spiritual relationship with mother earth and nature.
It has, after all, been our determination to defend our identity and our lands, territories and resources which has helped to protect and preserve the biological diversity of the world, the cultural diversity of the world, and the environmental stability of the world.
These are the very issues that governments are now so desperately trying to address, as matters requiring of emergency, recovery actions. The Declaration carries a message for all States that have links and association with Indigenous Peoples.
That message is not about secession, as some States may fear, but about co-operation and partnership to ensure that all individuals, regardless of race or beliefs, are truly equal and that all peoples are respected and allowed to develop.
Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination is about our right to freely determine our political status and freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development.
It also includes our right to freely manage our natural wealth and resources for mutual benefit, and our right to maintain and protect our own means of subsistence.
‘Free, prior and informed consent’ is what we demand as part of self-determination and non-discrimination from governments, multinationals and private sector.
We realise that a number of States have insisted that the Declaration affirm ‘territorial integrity’ (which by the way is not a human right) as defined in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and in the Vienna Declaration.
We confirm that ‘territorial integrity’ in fact obligates every State to promote realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to bring a speedy end to colonialism, with due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned.
‘Territorial integrity’ also requires that a State represent the whole people without distinction, and reaffirms that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and
is contrary to the Charter.
The Declaration ensures treaties signed between Indigenous Peoples and States are respected and honoured. This provision in the Declaration is extremely important for Indigenous Peoples who have always placed much importance upon the integrity and truthfulness of historical treaties, for these treaties may contain special rights and economic and political agreements with States.
However it is important that we keep focus on the integrity of the Declaration, noting how each article is meant to be interpreted in conjunction with the entire Declaration, its principles and its
purposes.
We are also assured by Article 46(3) that states: “The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.”
Now that the Declaration has been adopted by the General Assembly, Indigenous Peoples can reasonably expect that the States will, if they do not already have such a relationship, form a collaborative and cooperative relationship with the representatives of the indigenous peoples to ensure that the rights contained in the Declaration are protected and promoted.
In 2004 the General Assembly resolution 59/174 called upon Governments to ensure that activities and objectives for the Second Decade are planned and implemented on the basis of full consultation and collaboration with indigenous people.
The programme of action, approved by consensus by the General Assembly in December 2005, urged governments to launch a review of national legislations to eliminate possible discriminatory provisions with the full and effective participation of indigenous experts.
The Programme of Action recommends that national constitutions should recognize the existence of indigenous peoples and make explicit reference to them, where relevant, and that governments should consider integrating traditional systems of justice into national legislations in conformity with international human rights law and international standards of justice.
This is the challenge for the future. With a Declaration now in place, affirming the rights of Indigenous Peoples, it will be important that States respond positively.
The Declaration gives us the platform for addressing the continuing abuses of human rights against Indigenous Peoples and for shaping a future where it can be realised that all peoples are truly equal.
New York, 13 September 2007 - Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The Secretary-General warmly welcomes the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a triumph for indigenous peoples around the world. He notes that this marks a historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all.
The Secretary-General calls on Governments and civil society to urgently advance the work of integrating the rights of indigenous peoples into international human rights and development agendas, as well as policies and programmes at all levels, so as to ensure that the vision behind the Declaration becomes a reality.
I invite you to distribute this information widely
Peace and good wishes
Kevin Dance, C.P.
Vice-Chair, NGO Committee on the UN International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.
I hasten to share joyful news with all of you who have worked hard and long with our Indigenous sisters and brothers to see justice done for them.
I have just returned from the General Assembly chamber of the United Nations after witnessing an historic vote. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by vote with 143 in favour, 4 against and 11 abstentions.
Australia distinguished itself by leading the charge against the Declaration. However it turned out to be a charge that lacked credibility and energy. Australia was joined by only three countries - Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America.
Australia, which Ambassador Hill presented to other UN member states as a champion of indigenous rights, brought forth 6 ‘arguments’ as to why it could not accept the Declaration. Self-determination; lands and resources; free, prior and informed consent; intellectual property rights; placing customary law above national law and no acknowledgement of third party rights of access to indigenous lands. No “undefined sub-group” can have the right to veto government decisions.
Of course each of these straw men had long ago been explored, negotiated and addressed by governments and indigenous representatives. The fact that 143 other sovereign states did not find the declaration to pose a threat to their constitutions, national laws of sovereignty obvious had no persuasive power for Australia and its few friends.
Another Australian NGO representative who was present said: ‘I feel ashamed to be an Australian’.
I add statements by Les Malezer, Chairperson of the Global Indigenous Caucus and by Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the UN.
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN, GLOBAL INDIGENOUS CAUCUS
By Les Malezer, 13 September 2007
The adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the United Nations marks a momentous and historic occasion for both Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations.
One quarter of a century ago the United Nations agreed that the situation of indigenous peoples around the world was so desperate and consistently exploited, that it warranted international attention.
Within a few years of brief examination and assessment, the United Nations decided that a human rights standard on the rights of indigenous peoples was required.
Simultaneously, the indigenous peoples of the world were uniting, because of our increasing capacity to communicate to each other, but also out of necessity to achieve an international voice.
Together we found out that Indigenous Peoples around the world shared a common situation of loss of control of our lands, territories and resources and a history of colonisation.
The Declaration, as a deposition, represents a meeting of authorities, i.e. the United Nations and the indigenous peoples. Today’s adoption of the Declaration occurs because the United Nations and the Indigenous Peoples have found the common will to achieve this outcome.
The Declaration does not represent solely the viewpoint of the United Nations, nor does it represent solely the viewpoint of the Indigenous Peoples.
It is a Declaration which combines our views and interests and which sets the framework for the future. It is a tool for peace and justice, based upon mutual recognition and mutual respect.
We emphasise once again that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contains no new provisions of human rights. It affirms many rights already contained in international human rights treaties, but rights which have been denied to the Indigenous Peoples.
As Indigenous Peoples we now see a guarantee that our rights to self determination, to our lands and territories, to our cultural identities, to our own representation and to our values and beliefs
will be respected at the international level.
The Declaration is a framework for States to link and integrate with the Indigenous Peoples, to initiate new and positive relations but this time without exclusion, without discrimination and without exploitation.
These rights in the Declaration are already recognised in international law, but they are rights which have been denied to Indigenous Peoples everywhere.
They are rights which are seen by Indigenous Peoples as essential to our successful survival, dignity and well-being, and to maintain our strong cultural and spiritual relationship with mother earth and nature.
It has, after all, been our determination to defend our identity and our lands, territories and resources which has helped to protect and preserve the biological diversity of the world, the cultural diversity of the world, and the environmental stability of the world.
These are the very issues that governments are now so desperately trying to address, as matters requiring of emergency, recovery actions. The Declaration carries a message for all States that have links and association with Indigenous Peoples.
That message is not about secession, as some States may fear, but about co-operation and partnership to ensure that all individuals, regardless of race or beliefs, are truly equal and that all peoples are respected and allowed to develop.
Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination is about our right to freely determine our political status and freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development.
It also includes our right to freely manage our natural wealth and resources for mutual benefit, and our right to maintain and protect our own means of subsistence.
‘Free, prior and informed consent’ is what we demand as part of self-determination and non-discrimination from governments, multinationals and private sector.
We realise that a number of States have insisted that the Declaration affirm ‘territorial integrity’ (which by the way is not a human right) as defined in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and in the Vienna Declaration.
We confirm that ‘territorial integrity’ in fact obligates every State to promote realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to bring a speedy end to colonialism, with due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned.
‘Territorial integrity’ also requires that a State represent the whole people without distinction, and reaffirms that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and
is contrary to the Charter.
The Declaration ensures treaties signed between Indigenous Peoples and States are respected and honoured. This provision in the Declaration is extremely important for Indigenous Peoples who have always placed much importance upon the integrity and truthfulness of historical treaties, for these treaties may contain special rights and economic and political agreements with States.
However it is important that we keep focus on the integrity of the Declaration, noting how each article is meant to be interpreted in conjunction with the entire Declaration, its principles and its
purposes.
We are also assured by Article 46(3) that states: “The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.”
Now that the Declaration has been adopted by the General Assembly, Indigenous Peoples can reasonably expect that the States will, if they do not already have such a relationship, form a collaborative and cooperative relationship with the representatives of the indigenous peoples to ensure that the rights contained in the Declaration are protected and promoted.
In 2004 the General Assembly resolution 59/174 called upon Governments to ensure that activities and objectives for the Second Decade are planned and implemented on the basis of full consultation and collaboration with indigenous people.
The programme of action, approved by consensus by the General Assembly in December 2005, urged governments to launch a review of national legislations to eliminate possible discriminatory provisions with the full and effective participation of indigenous experts.
The Programme of Action recommends that national constitutions should recognize the existence of indigenous peoples and make explicit reference to them, where relevant, and that governments should consider integrating traditional systems of justice into national legislations in conformity with international human rights law and international standards of justice.
This is the challenge for the future. With a Declaration now in place, affirming the rights of Indigenous Peoples, it will be important that States respond positively.
The Declaration gives us the platform for addressing the continuing abuses of human rights against Indigenous Peoples and for shaping a future where it can be realised that all peoples are truly equal.
New York, 13 September 2007 - Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The Secretary-General warmly welcomes the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a triumph for indigenous peoples around the world. He notes that this marks a historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all.
The Secretary-General calls on Governments and civil society to urgently advance the work of integrating the rights of indigenous peoples into international human rights and development agendas, as well as policies and programmes at all levels, so as to ensure that the vision behind the Declaration becomes a reality.
I invite you to distribute this information widely
Peace and good wishes
Kevin Dance, C.P.
Vice-Chair, NGO Committee on the UN International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Pat Dodson lashes sinister "intervention"
Stuart Rintoul
The Australia, September 13, 2007
ABORIGINAL leader Pat Dodson has penned a savage attack on the Howard Government's intervention in the Northern Territory, describing it as a sinister attempt to extinguish indigenous culture.
In the first book dealing with the historic intervention three months ago - Coercive Reconciliation - Stabilise, Normalise, Exit Aboriginal Australia - Mr Dodson also takes aim at Aboriginal leaders who have supported the Government's plan, calling them recklessly naive.
Without naming Noel Pearson or other Aboriginal leaders who have backed the intervention, he writes: "Some indigenous voices in this debate, motivated by the urgency of ending the suffering in indigenous communities, have been recklessly naive in aiding and abetting the Howard Government's agenda.
"Indigenous advocates, campaigning for structural change in government relationships that aim to liberate their people from the tyranny of welfare dependency and control, have misread the indigenous political struggle."
In an essay titled Whatever Happened to Reconciliation?, Mr Dodson, who has been called the father of reconciliation, paints a picture of a government using the pretext of child abuse in the Territory to force Aborigines to integrate into mainstream society.
He says the Government is bent on a radical agenda of "deconstructing and denying the abilities of indigenous people to live in their settlements on traditional country" and has set out to "remodel them into mine labourers, small business people and private entrepreneurs".
He writes that Aboriginal people have so consistently been portrayed as sexual deviants and sociopaths during the Howard years that it has set like cement in the minds of ordinary Australians that "there is nothing noble in the Aboriginal race".
In a separate essay in the book, which is edited by ANU academics Jon Altman and Melinda Hinkson, Mr Dodson's brother Mick describes the intervention as "storm-trooper tent diplomacy of health providers dressed in battle fatigues".
Attacking indigenous policy during the Howard years, Pat Dodson writes: "The benign use of government language - mainstream services, practical reconciliation, mutual obligations, responsibilities and participation in the real economy - cloaks a sinister destination."
He says the Government's goal is "the extinguishing of indigenous culture by attrition", and describes this as "a searing moral challenge" for the nation.
In Alice Springs yesterday, Mr Dodson emerged from a briefing by NT taskforce chairwoman Sue Gordon and operational commander Major General David Chalmers concerned that little had been done to stem the "rivers of grog" flowing into Aboriginal communities with still no valid explanation for taking over Aboriginal land or abolishing the permit system controlling access to Aboriginal communities.
He said a succession of reports suggested Aboriginal living standards had worsened during the Howard years. Whole-of-government trials in Aboriginal communities aimed at bringing together the various levels of government, shared responsibility agreements and regional partnership agreements had been "an unmitigated public policy disaster".
"Coercive Reconciliation", a collection of essays by Aboriginal leaders, academics and social commentators, is edited by Jon Altman and Melinda Hinkson, and published by Arena.
The Australia, September 13, 2007
ABORIGINAL leader Pat Dodson has penned a savage attack on the Howard Government's intervention in the Northern Territory, describing it as a sinister attempt to extinguish indigenous culture.
In the first book dealing with the historic intervention three months ago - Coercive Reconciliation - Stabilise, Normalise, Exit Aboriginal Australia - Mr Dodson also takes aim at Aboriginal leaders who have supported the Government's plan, calling them recklessly naive.
Without naming Noel Pearson or other Aboriginal leaders who have backed the intervention, he writes: "Some indigenous voices in this debate, motivated by the urgency of ending the suffering in indigenous communities, have been recklessly naive in aiding and abetting the Howard Government's agenda.
"Indigenous advocates, campaigning for structural change in government relationships that aim to liberate their people from the tyranny of welfare dependency and control, have misread the indigenous political struggle."
In an essay titled Whatever Happened to Reconciliation?, Mr Dodson, who has been called the father of reconciliation, paints a picture of a government using the pretext of child abuse in the Territory to force Aborigines to integrate into mainstream society.
He says the Government is bent on a radical agenda of "deconstructing and denying the abilities of indigenous people to live in their settlements on traditional country" and has set out to "remodel them into mine labourers, small business people and private entrepreneurs".
He writes that Aboriginal people have so consistently been portrayed as sexual deviants and sociopaths during the Howard years that it has set like cement in the minds of ordinary Australians that "there is nothing noble in the Aboriginal race".
In a separate essay in the book, which is edited by ANU academics Jon Altman and Melinda Hinkson, Mr Dodson's brother Mick describes the intervention as "storm-trooper tent diplomacy of health providers dressed in battle fatigues".
Attacking indigenous policy during the Howard years, Pat Dodson writes: "The benign use of government language - mainstream services, practical reconciliation, mutual obligations, responsibilities and participation in the real economy - cloaks a sinister destination."
He says the Government's goal is "the extinguishing of indigenous culture by attrition", and describes this as "a searing moral challenge" for the nation.
In Alice Springs yesterday, Mr Dodson emerged from a briefing by NT taskforce chairwoman Sue Gordon and operational commander Major General David Chalmers concerned that little had been done to stem the "rivers of grog" flowing into Aboriginal communities with still no valid explanation for taking over Aboriginal land or abolishing the permit system controlling access to Aboriginal communities.
He said a succession of reports suggested Aboriginal living standards had worsened during the Howard years. Whole-of-government trials in Aboriginal communities aimed at bringing together the various levels of government, shared responsibility agreements and regional partnership agreements had been "an unmitigated public policy disaster".
"Coercive Reconciliation", a collection of essays by Aboriginal leaders, academics and social commentators, is edited by Jon Altman and Melinda Hinkson, and published by Arena.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Peace & Non Violence Commission Bill 2007
Peace & Non Violence Commission Bill 2007
Letter sent to Senator Allison from Pax Christi Australia NSW.
Dear Senator Allison,
I am the NSW Convenor of Pax Christi Australia [NSW] and national promoter for justice and peace for the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart - a religious congregation working in many different areas in Australia and overseas. Pax Christi is part of an international movement for peace established in 1945 in Europe and is now established in each continent. At our meeting this evening the Peace Commission and Non Violence Bill was mentioned and discussed. May I congratulate you on this wonderful initiative. The Committee meeting asked me to pass on these sentiments and was also keen to know how we might support you in this Bill. Personally, I am very excited by it. I would be very grateful to hear from you as to how our group might support this initiatve.
With best wishes for all you do
Sincerely yours
[Father] Claude Mostowik msc
Father Claude Mostowik msc
Director, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart Justice and Peace Centre
PO Box 146
15A Swanson Street
Erskineville NSW 2043
Australia
Convenor, Pax Christi Australia [NSW] Inc.
PO Box A681
Sydney South NSW 1235
Australia
Phone 61+2+9550 3845
Fax 61+2+9519 8471
Mobile 0411 450 953
Skype Claude Mostowik
Email mscjust@smartchat.net.au
http://www.paxchristi.org.au
http://www.paxchristi.net/
Letter sent to Senator Allison from Pax Christi Australia NSW.
Dear Senator Allison,
I am the NSW Convenor of Pax Christi Australia [NSW] and national promoter for justice and peace for the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart - a religious congregation working in many different areas in Australia and overseas. Pax Christi is part of an international movement for peace established in 1945 in Europe and is now established in each continent. At our meeting this evening the Peace Commission and Non Violence Bill was mentioned and discussed. May I congratulate you on this wonderful initiative. The Committee meeting asked me to pass on these sentiments and was also keen to know how we might support you in this Bill. Personally, I am very excited by it. I would be very grateful to hear from you as to how our group might support this initiatve.
With best wishes for all you do
Sincerely yours
[Father] Claude Mostowik msc
Father Claude Mostowik msc
Director, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart Justice and Peace Centre
PO Box 146
15A Swanson Street
Erskineville NSW 2043
Australia
Convenor, Pax Christi Australia [NSW] Inc.
PO Box A681
Sydney South NSW 1235
Australia
Phone 61+2+9550 3845
Fax 61+2+9519 8471
Mobile 0411 450 953
Skype Claude Mostowik
Email mscjust@smartchat.net.au
http://www.paxchristi.org.au
http://www.paxchristi.net/
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Social Justice Sunday - 30 September 2007
10am – 4pm
Mary MacKillop Place
North Sydney
Join Graeme Mundine, Larissa Behrendt,
Jill Finnane and Jennifer Burn to discuss global realities around indigenous issues, the environment and trafficking.
Free Sausage Sizzle
RSVP Marion Gambin by Friday 14 September 2007
Phone: 8741 2326 Email: mariongambin@hotmail.com
Cost: a small donation if you can.
Mary MacKillop Place
North Sydney
Join Graeme Mundine, Larissa Behrendt,
Jill Finnane and Jennifer Burn to discuss global realities around indigenous issues, the environment and trafficking.
Free Sausage Sizzle
RSVP Marion Gambin by Friday 14 September 2007
Phone: 8741 2326 Email: mariongambin@hotmail.com
Cost: a small donation if you can.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
All People for Environment & Community
Sydney Peoples Alternative Rally and Festival Friday, September 7 in Hyde
Park North from 11am
Many thousands of people in Sydney do not welcome the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in our city. Their alternative view will be expressed at a colourful festival to be held on Friday, September 7 in Hyde Park North from 11am to 2pm.
All People for Environment and Community, a wide coalition of community groups have come together to organise the Peoples’ Alternative Festival.
The Festival will promote the people’s alternative of fair trade, real action on global warming, genuine development to alleviate poverty, opposition to war, and respect for the labour rights and human rights of all the peoples of our vast Asia Pacific region.
Music, performance, speakers, information and food stalls will combine to offer an inclusive peaceful people’s vision for the future, in stark contrast to the secretive, big business agenda of the 21 APEC leaders behind their concrete barricades.
Bands include: Men from UNCLE; Ken Stewart (Urban Guerrillas); Bolivarian Band and Korean drummers.
Organised by: All People for Environment & Community: Anti-Bases Campaign;
Sydney Peace & Justice Coalition; Migrante Philippines Australia; Bolivarian Circle; Chilean Socialist Party / Oceania; Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union; Australian Services Union; Maritime Union of Australia (Sydney Branch); SEARCH Foundation; Korean Resource Centre; Communist Party of Australia; Inner-West Your Rights at Work; Aust Fair Trade & Investment Network. Contact: Peter Murphy 0418 312 301. Jane Brock 0410 453 459.
Email: pmurphy@search.org.au
ALL WELCOME!
Park North from 11am
Many thousands of people in Sydney do not welcome the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in our city. Their alternative view will be expressed at a colourful festival to be held on Friday, September 7 in Hyde Park North from 11am to 2pm.
All People for Environment and Community, a wide coalition of community groups have come together to organise the Peoples’ Alternative Festival.
The Festival will promote the people’s alternative of fair trade, real action on global warming, genuine development to alleviate poverty, opposition to war, and respect for the labour rights and human rights of all the peoples of our vast Asia Pacific region.
Music, performance, speakers, information and food stalls will combine to offer an inclusive peaceful people’s vision for the future, in stark contrast to the secretive, big business agenda of the 21 APEC leaders behind their concrete barricades.
Bands include: Men from UNCLE; Ken Stewart (Urban Guerrillas); Bolivarian Band and Korean drummers.
Organised by: All People for Environment & Community: Anti-Bases Campaign;
Sydney Peace & Justice Coalition; Migrante Philippines Australia; Bolivarian Circle; Chilean Socialist Party / Oceania; Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union; Australian Services Union; Maritime Union of Australia (Sydney Branch); SEARCH Foundation; Korean Resource Centre; Communist Party of Australia; Inner-West Your Rights at Work; Aust Fair Trade & Investment Network. Contact: Peter Murphy 0418 312 301. Jane Brock 0410 453 459.
Email: pmurphy@search.org.au
ALL WELCOME!
HIGH COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT TO VOTE IN LANDMARK CASE
Thu, 30 Aug 2007
In a landmark decision, the High Court has today upheld the fundamental human right to vote, finding that the Howard Government had acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in imposing a blanket ban denying prisoners the vote.
In 2006, the Howard Government passed legislation which denied all prisoners the right to vote. This law was challenged in the High Court by Vickie Roach, an Aboriginal woman who is a prisoner at the Dame Phyllis Frost Prison in Melbourne. In orders made today, the High Court struck down the blanket prohibition on prisoners voting. The Court upheld the validity, however, of the law providing that prisoners serving a sentence of three years or longer are not entitled to vote.
The decision of the High Court is a victory for representative democracy, accountable government, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. With Aboriginal Australians incarcerated at a rate of almost 13 times that of their fellow Australians, it is also a vindication of Aboriginal rights.
Speaking after the decision was handed down, Philip Lynch, Director of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre which ran the case, said, OThis is a common sense decision. The Howard Government disenfranchised prisoners on the spurious ground that to do so would promote respect for the social contract and the rule of law. Far from achieving this, denial of the fundamental human right to vote results in social exclusion, isolation, resentment and unaccountable and unrepresentative government. This is particularly undesirable given that the overwhelming majority of prisoners will be released at some stage.¹ Mr Lynch said that the supreme courts of Canada, South Africa and Europe had, over the last ten years, reached the same conclusion.
Mr Lynch paid tribute to Vickie Roach for taking her fight to the High Court. OIn running this case, Vickie has stood up not just for the human rights of prisoners and Aboriginal Australians, but the interests of the entire community. She has done so with courage, integrity and commitment.¹
The Human Rights Law Resource Centre was provided with outstanding legal assistance throughout the case by leading Australian law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, Ron Merkel QC, Michael Pearce SC, and Fiona Forsyth and Kristen Walker of Counsel. OThe legal team brought significant commitment, expertise, resources and dedication to this matter. They acted to protect human rights and uphold the rule of law and, in so doing, acted in the highest traditions of the profession and the interests of the community as a whole.¹
Philip Lynch
Director and Principal Solicitor
Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd
Level 1, 550 Lonsdale Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
P: + 61 3 9225 6695
F: + 61 3 9225 6686
M: 0438 776 433
E: hrlrc@vicbar.com.au
W: www.hrlrc.org.au
In a landmark decision, the High Court has today upheld the fundamental human right to vote, finding that the Howard Government had acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in imposing a blanket ban denying prisoners the vote.
In 2006, the Howard Government passed legislation which denied all prisoners the right to vote. This law was challenged in the High Court by Vickie Roach, an Aboriginal woman who is a prisoner at the Dame Phyllis Frost Prison in Melbourne. In orders made today, the High Court struck down the blanket prohibition on prisoners voting. The Court upheld the validity, however, of the law providing that prisoners serving a sentence of three years or longer are not entitled to vote.
The decision of the High Court is a victory for representative democracy, accountable government, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. With Aboriginal Australians incarcerated at a rate of almost 13 times that of their fellow Australians, it is also a vindication of Aboriginal rights.
Speaking after the decision was handed down, Philip Lynch, Director of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre which ran the case, said, OThis is a common sense decision. The Howard Government disenfranchised prisoners on the spurious ground that to do so would promote respect for the social contract and the rule of law. Far from achieving this, denial of the fundamental human right to vote results in social exclusion, isolation, resentment and unaccountable and unrepresentative government. This is particularly undesirable given that the overwhelming majority of prisoners will be released at some stage.¹ Mr Lynch said that the supreme courts of Canada, South Africa and Europe had, over the last ten years, reached the same conclusion.
Mr Lynch paid tribute to Vickie Roach for taking her fight to the High Court. OIn running this case, Vickie has stood up not just for the human rights of prisoners and Aboriginal Australians, but the interests of the entire community. She has done so with courage, integrity and commitment.¹
The Human Rights Law Resource Centre was provided with outstanding legal assistance throughout the case by leading Australian law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, Ron Merkel QC, Michael Pearce SC, and Fiona Forsyth and Kristen Walker of Counsel. OThe legal team brought significant commitment, expertise, resources and dedication to this matter. They acted to protect human rights and uphold the rule of law and, in so doing, acted in the highest traditions of the profession and the interests of the community as a whole.¹
Philip Lynch
Director and Principal Solicitor
Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd
Level 1, 550 Lonsdale Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
P: + 61 3 9225 6695
F: + 61 3 9225 6686
M: 0438 776 433
E: hrlrc@vicbar.com.au
W: www.hrlrc.org.au
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Patrick Dodson 21 August 2007 in Sydney
21st Sydney Chapter Forum - Patrick Dodson 21 August 2007
Sydney Chapter Forum:
Featuring Patrick Dodson,Chairman of the Lingiari Foundation and widely recognised as the Father of the Reconciliation Movement in Australia, and Jack Waterford, Editor-At-Large of the Canberra Times.
Pat will give a spirited address during a lunchtime Forum on the thought provoking and often challenging topic of "Liyan Ngarn" (Common Fate between Black and White Australians).
Jack Waterford will respond to Pat Dodson's address. Jack has interrupted his impressive journalistic career several times to work with and for Aboriginal communities. He writes currently on a wide range of national issues.
The Forum will be held in the NSW Parliament House Theatrette, Macquarie Street, Sydney. Time: 12.15pm for 12.30pm start.
For further details please contact the CES Office on (02) 9572 6044.
Sydney Chapter Forum:
Featuring Patrick Dodson,Chairman of the Lingiari Foundation and widely recognised as the Father of the Reconciliation Movement in Australia, and Jack Waterford, Editor-At-Large of the Canberra Times.
Pat will give a spirited address during a lunchtime Forum on the thought provoking and often challenging topic of "Liyan Ngarn" (Common Fate between Black and White Australians).
Jack Waterford will respond to Pat Dodson's address. Jack has interrupted his impressive journalistic career several times to work with and for Aboriginal communities. He writes currently on a wide range of national issues.
The Forum will be held in the NSW Parliament House Theatrette, Macquarie Street, Sydney. Time: 12.15pm for 12.30pm start.
For further details please contact the CES Office on (02) 9572 6044.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Carol Powell's Statement in Court -Talisman Sabre
Gill Burrow's shared this wonderfully moving statement made in court last Thursday by Carole Powell, one of the inspiring TS07 ‘Imagining peace’ group who entered the military exclusion area during the recent Talisman Sabre exercises last month.
Carole was the National Coordinator for the recent John Dear visit organised by Pace e Bene Australia.
If anyone wants some background on the action see http://smoyle.blogspot.com/2007/07/shoalwater-bay-peace-convergence-report.html
In brief, here are their three main objectives for the action [taken from the above website].
“The focus for us was threefold:
1. To establish a reasoned and respectful dialogue with the soldiers. As protests are often restricted to yelling from behind a fence, we wanted to change the dynamic, to engage face to face with the people behind the uniform, and for them to do the same with us.
2. At the same time, we knew that any presence of civilians on the base would immediately halt the war games. Therefore another aim was to disrupt the exercises with our presence.
3. We wanted to see the base transformed from somewhere war games were conducted to a place where peace games are played. Hence not only did our presence cause the shutting down of the military activities, but we invited the soldiers to play frisbee with us on the tarmac.”
Carole was the National Coordinator for the recent John Dear visit organised by Pace e Bene Australia.
If anyone wants some background on the action see http://smoyle.blogspot.com/2007/07/shoalwater-bay-peace-convergence-report.html
In brief, here are their three main objectives for the action [taken from the above website].
“The focus for us was threefold:
1. To establish a reasoned and respectful dialogue with the soldiers. As protests are often restricted to yelling from behind a fence, we wanted to change the dynamic, to engage face to face with the people behind the uniform, and for them to do the same with us.
2. At the same time, we knew that any presence of civilians on the base would immediately halt the war games. Therefore another aim was to disrupt the exercises with our presence.
3. We wanted to see the base transformed from somewhere war games were conducted to a place where peace games are played. Hence not only did our presence cause the shutting down of the military activities, but we invited the soldiers to play frisbee with us on the tarmac.”
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Australian Catholic Bishops Statement on dignity and justice for Indigenous Australians.
http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/documents/20070705451.pdf
A Statement from the Catholic Bishops of Australia on dignity and justice for Indigenous Australians
5 July 2007
Printable Version
The Catholic Bishops of Australia welcome the high priority the Federal Government has now accorded to addressing the appalling problems facing people in remote Northern Territory Aboriginal communities.
The high incidence in remote Aboriginal communities of child sexual abuse and other unacceptable threats to children’s wellbeing has been a matter of growing public concern for some time. Numerous enquiries and commissioned reports have raised these issues and highlighted the deplorable conditions in many Indigenous communities. The most recent such report was Little Children are Sacred, by Rex Wild and Pat Anderson.
In our Social Justice Sunday Statement 2006, we recounted some of the alarming statistics regarding the poor health, low life expectancy and high incarceration rates of Indigenous Australians. We argued that political will and relatively moderate resources could prevent such disadvantage, and called for positive and decisive action to eliminate these dire circumstances from the everyday experience of many Indigenous people.[1]
While this is not a time for allocating blame, all Australians should accept some collective responsibility for redressing the current shameful state of affairs, and recognise that past wrongs are reflected in present legacies. As Pope John Paul II said when he addressed Indigenous Australians in Alice Springs in 1986:
what has been done cannot be undone. But what can now be done to remedy the deeds of
yesterday must not be put off till tomorrow.[2]
We hope that the entire Australian community will now endorse the need for urgent and sustained action.
However, we have significant concerns about the nature of some of the Federal Government’s “emergency response” measures announced on 21 June 2007, and about the proposed process for implementing that response:
Child abuse and child poverty must be addressed by a long-term and comprehensive response – tackling such key causative factors as inadequate social services and infrastructure (including housing), inadequate numeracy and literacy, poor employment opportunities, substance abuse, and community breakdown. Guaranteed, long-term and adequate funding is essential.
· We need much more than a “law and order” response. Children who have been abused and vulnerable families need sympathetic and skilled carers, teachers, medical practitioners and social service practitioners. We need to ensure the full range of culturally appropriate support services to address this issue and foster strong families and communities.
The response must be respectful of Indigenous culture and identity, and must be undertaken in full and genuine partnership with Aboriginal communities themselves. History clearly demonstrates that effective solutions cannot simply be imposed from above.
Recognised Aboriginal community leaders have an important role to play. So too do Church and community organisations working with Aboriginal communities, many of whom have developed strong working relationships over many years of close partnerships.
The Federal Government must do all in its power to promote the dignity and respect of Aboriginal people, and to acknowledge the many instances of good social practice that have occurred in many communities. Particular care must be taken not to stigmatise all Aboriginal men as abusers.
Government action should take full account of, and implement where appropriate, the recommendations made in a number of reports, notably Little Children are Sacred.
The Government needs to demonstrate why action to address child abuse in Aboriginal communities requires amendments to land rights and self-government legislation.
The response must be designed and implemented so as to support, rather than undermine, the future sustainability of remote Aboriginal communities. Talk of “mainstreaming” calls to mind the following warning about the dangers of “ethnocentricity”: “The rejection of differences can lead to that form of cultural annihilation which sociologists have called “ethnocide” and which does not tolerate the presence of others except to the extent that they allow themselves to be assimilated into the dominant culture.”[3]
Institutionalised racism cannot be acceptable. As Indigenous leaders have pointed out, the policy of imposing penalties on all parents receiving certain income support or Family Tax Benefits if they live in remote Aboriginal communities, while equivalent penalties will apply to other Australians only if there is evidence of “irresponsible” parenting, is both racially discriminatory and counter-productive. It would appear to breach the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) and Australia’s international law obligations.[4] As stated by the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace, “the law must be equal for all citizens without distinction. It is important for ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities…to enjoy recognition of the same inalienable rights as other citizens.[5]
We welcome and support the Prime Minister’s affirmation that government owes a duty of care to all Australian children. This obligation applies to all children in Australia, irrespective of race or location. Indeed we are all responsible for all children, especially those who are vulnerable or at risk.
Child poverty is itself a form of abuse, making children more vulnerable to other types of abuse. An unacceptable proportion of Australian children are living in poverty, many without secure housing. This too is a long-overdue cause for urgent national concern. We call upon Federal, State and Territory governments to take early and decisive action towards eliminating child poverty and child homelessness from our wealthy country. A national poverty strategy with a special focus on ending child poverty could be the vehicle for this, enabling collaboration among all levels of government and community sector and business groups.
We strongly support the ongoing work of our agencies which seek to provide social services to, and promote the interests of, Indigenous Australians facing disadvantage. Among these are the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Catholic Council, Catholic Social Services Australia, Centacare NT, the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, Caritas Australia, Catholic Health Australia and the National Catholic Education Commission.
[1] Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Social Justice Sunday Statement 2006: The Heart of Our Country – Dignity and justice for our Indigenous sisters and brothers, p.12.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace, The Church and Racism, 1988, #12.
[4] See International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Articles 2 and 5 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm).
[5] The Church and Racism (n.3 above), #23.
A Statement from the Catholic Bishops of Australia on dignity and justice for Indigenous Australians
5 July 2007
Printable Version
The Catholic Bishops of Australia welcome the high priority the Federal Government has now accorded to addressing the appalling problems facing people in remote Northern Territory Aboriginal communities.
The high incidence in remote Aboriginal communities of child sexual abuse and other unacceptable threats to children’s wellbeing has been a matter of growing public concern for some time. Numerous enquiries and commissioned reports have raised these issues and highlighted the deplorable conditions in many Indigenous communities. The most recent such report was Little Children are Sacred, by Rex Wild and Pat Anderson.
In our Social Justice Sunday Statement 2006, we recounted some of the alarming statistics regarding the poor health, low life expectancy and high incarceration rates of Indigenous Australians. We argued that political will and relatively moderate resources could prevent such disadvantage, and called for positive and decisive action to eliminate these dire circumstances from the everyday experience of many Indigenous people.[1]
While this is not a time for allocating blame, all Australians should accept some collective responsibility for redressing the current shameful state of affairs, and recognise that past wrongs are reflected in present legacies. As Pope John Paul II said when he addressed Indigenous Australians in Alice Springs in 1986:
what has been done cannot be undone. But what can now be done to remedy the deeds of
yesterday must not be put off till tomorrow.[2]
We hope that the entire Australian community will now endorse the need for urgent and sustained action.
However, we have significant concerns about the nature of some of the Federal Government’s “emergency response” measures announced on 21 June 2007, and about the proposed process for implementing that response:
Child abuse and child poverty must be addressed by a long-term and comprehensive response – tackling such key causative factors as inadequate social services and infrastructure (including housing), inadequate numeracy and literacy, poor employment opportunities, substance abuse, and community breakdown. Guaranteed, long-term and adequate funding is essential.
· We need much more than a “law and order” response. Children who have been abused and vulnerable families need sympathetic and skilled carers, teachers, medical practitioners and social service practitioners. We need to ensure the full range of culturally appropriate support services to address this issue and foster strong families and communities.
The response must be respectful of Indigenous culture and identity, and must be undertaken in full and genuine partnership with Aboriginal communities themselves. History clearly demonstrates that effective solutions cannot simply be imposed from above.
Recognised Aboriginal community leaders have an important role to play. So too do Church and community organisations working with Aboriginal communities, many of whom have developed strong working relationships over many years of close partnerships.
The Federal Government must do all in its power to promote the dignity and respect of Aboriginal people, and to acknowledge the many instances of good social practice that have occurred in many communities. Particular care must be taken not to stigmatise all Aboriginal men as abusers.
Government action should take full account of, and implement where appropriate, the recommendations made in a number of reports, notably Little Children are Sacred.
The Government needs to demonstrate why action to address child abuse in Aboriginal communities requires amendments to land rights and self-government legislation.
The response must be designed and implemented so as to support, rather than undermine, the future sustainability of remote Aboriginal communities. Talk of “mainstreaming” calls to mind the following warning about the dangers of “ethnocentricity”: “The rejection of differences can lead to that form of cultural annihilation which sociologists have called “ethnocide” and which does not tolerate the presence of others except to the extent that they allow themselves to be assimilated into the dominant culture.”[3]
Institutionalised racism cannot be acceptable. As Indigenous leaders have pointed out, the policy of imposing penalties on all parents receiving certain income support or Family Tax Benefits if they live in remote Aboriginal communities, while equivalent penalties will apply to other Australians only if there is evidence of “irresponsible” parenting, is both racially discriminatory and counter-productive. It would appear to breach the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) and Australia’s international law obligations.[4] As stated by the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace, “the law must be equal for all citizens without distinction. It is important for ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities…to enjoy recognition of the same inalienable rights as other citizens.[5]
We welcome and support the Prime Minister’s affirmation that government owes a duty of care to all Australian children. This obligation applies to all children in Australia, irrespective of race or location. Indeed we are all responsible for all children, especially those who are vulnerable or at risk.
Child poverty is itself a form of abuse, making children more vulnerable to other types of abuse. An unacceptable proportion of Australian children are living in poverty, many without secure housing. This too is a long-overdue cause for urgent national concern. We call upon Federal, State and Territory governments to take early and decisive action towards eliminating child poverty and child homelessness from our wealthy country. A national poverty strategy with a special focus on ending child poverty could be the vehicle for this, enabling collaboration among all levels of government and community sector and business groups.
We strongly support the ongoing work of our agencies which seek to provide social services to, and promote the interests of, Indigenous Australians facing disadvantage. Among these are the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Catholic Council, Catholic Social Services Australia, Centacare NT, the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, Caritas Australia, Catholic Health Australia and the National Catholic Education Commission.
[1] Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Social Justice Sunday Statement 2006: The Heart of Our Country – Dignity and justice for our Indigenous sisters and brothers, p.12.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace, The Church and Racism, 1988, #12.
[4] See International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Articles 2 and 5 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm).
[5] The Church and Racism (n.3 above), #23.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
ENGAGE- exploring nonviolent living: SYDNEY 2007 – Commencing JULY 28th
DATES:
July 28th 9.30am to 4.30pm
Aug 25th 9.30am to 4.30pm
September 22nd 9.30am to 4.30pm
October 27th 9.30am to 4.30pm
COSTS: COURSE FEE $250 [$175 concession] As this is a 12 part programme offered over four whole day workshops, attendance at all sessions is recommended.
July 28th 9.30am to 4.30pm
Aug 25th 9.30am to 4.30pm
September 22nd 9.30am to 4.30pm
October 27th 9.30am to 4.30pm
COSTS: COURSE FEE $250 [$175 concession] As this is a 12 part programme offered over four whole day workshops, attendance at all sessions is recommended.
If this is not possible the per session fee is $80 [$55 conc]
We would not like cost to prevent anyone from attending so please contact us to discuss this..
We have the option of three possible locations and on the enrollment form we invite you to indicate preferences for location if you have any, and type of transport likely to be used – this will help us chose the most suitable location.
Possible locations:
Epping – 5 mins from the station, parking nearby
Newtown – 10 mins from the station, parking nearby
North Sydney – 10 mins from the station, parking nearby
For further information about Pace e Bene Australia - see www.paceebene.org.au
Pace e Bene Australia was established in early 2006 as an associated body to the US-based Pace e Bene Nonviolence Service . It is a registered nonprofit association.
The primary activity of Pace e Bene Australia is to facilitate the programmes developed by the parent body: Engage, From Violence to Wholeness and Traveling with the Turtle with workshops around Australia.
Click here to contact the nearest member of the committee to discuss the workshops and how we can support you – either by facilitating a program for your community or just providing some advice on how to do it yourselves.
We produce an occasional newsletter called PACE OZ! with information on recent workshops and activities around the country. You can view past issues and catch other news here
Friday, June 29, 2007
Urgent Action - Emergency Plan for NT
Dear Friends,
The following is now up on the website for you to take action.
EMERGENCY PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY*
Write to Prime Minister & Minister Brough, copy to Rudd *
LETTER sent to various newspapers and to Mr Rudd and various Ministers and parliamentarians by CCJP facilitator Margaret Hinchey .
Please go to the CCJP website above and click on "Urgent Action" you will be able to link in with ANTaR's response and Australiansall's response This was originally sent by Catholics in Coalition for Justice and Peace.
Peace
Claude Mostowik msc
The following is now up on the website for you to take action.
EMERGENCY PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY*
Write to Prime Minister & Minister Brough, copy to Rudd *
LETTER sent to various newspapers and to Mr Rudd and various Ministers and parliamentarians by CCJP facilitator Margaret Hinchey .
Please go to the CCJP website above and click on "Urgent Action" you will be able to link in with ANTaR's response and Australiansall's response This was originally sent by Catholics in Coalition for Justice and Peace.
Peace
Claude Mostowik msc
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Love your enemies _ John Dear SJ
Love your enemies: Beginning a reflection on the Sermon on the Mount
Submitted by John Dear SJ on June 26, 2007 - 9:51am.
On the Road to Peace by John Dear S.J.
National Catholic Reporter Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2007
National Catholic Reporter Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2007
The bad news is so overwhelming these days, it's hard to find any good news. But the Gospel provides it in abundance in the life and teachings of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, his great manifesto of revolutionary nonviolence. Every June, we hear excerpts from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, in the daily readings. If I had any say, I would create a "Sermon on the Mount" Sunday and have the entire text read out loud at every Mass. In an effort to promote some good news, I thought I'd offer a kind of summer series on the Sermon on the Mount, as a way to stay focused on the nonviolent Jesus and his vision.
Mahatma Gandhi read from it twice a day for the last 40 years of his life -- and he was not even a Christian. He considered these texts the greatest writings on nonviolence in the history of the world. Since he wanted to become a person of nonviolence, he treated these teachings as a basic primer, as the catechism of nonviolence. I want to do the same.
I've already written about the Beatitudes, and thought I'd jump around and start with the centerpiece, the climactic highpoint, the sixth of six antitheses ("You have heard it said, but I say to you…."), the great commandment: "Love your enemies."
We can never talk about this commandment enough. For me, it sums up Christianity. If we do this, we will obey Jesus fully, because it encompasses everything -- reflecting God's universal love, working for disarmament, seeking justice for the poor, practicing forgiveness, living in hope and trusting in the God of peace. I've long considered it the most radical, political, revolutionary words ever uttered. And by and large, for the last thousand years at least, we've done our best to avoid them and disobey them.
Why? Because they go against everything every nation teaches. Perhaps because we are afraid; we don't believe God will protect us. The whole world is based on the commandment: hate your enemies, punish your enemies, kill your enemies. Jesus reverses the entire nation/state system. He invites us not to hate, punish or kill anyone, especially those targeted by our nation/state. Needless to say, this means, he would want us to love, not kill, the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Colombia, Haiti, Russia, and any other people the U.S. military has targeted.
The text uses the Greek word "agape." Unlike any word in the English language, "agape" calls for deliberate, unconditional, non-retaliatory, sacrificial, all-encompassing, all-inclusive,
nonviolent universal love, a love which lays down our lives for others, in this case, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Jesus commands us to practice the unconditional love of God, to show, for example, "agape" to the people of Iraq. He wants us to stop killing one another, stop waging war, stop building and maintaining nuclear weapons, and stop our country from killing people. It is not enough for us not to kill; we have to stop our country from killing others. He wants us to reach beyond our borders to embrace everyone as a sister and brother, to make sure they have the fullness of life and love, to live in peace with everyone.
Jesus was not preaching hopeless idealism. He advocated a wise strategy for living in peace. "Love for enemies is the key to the solution of the problems of our world," Dr. King wrote. "Jesus is not an impractical idealist; he is the practical realist. Our responsibility as Christians is to discover the meaning of this command and seek passionately to live it out." Nelson Mandela put it this way: "I have never yet met an enemy whom I did not try to turn into a friend."
I've never understood why Christians do not take this commandment seriously. We Catholics believe in transubstantiation, and never question that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. We eagerly obey the command, "Do this in memory of me." But love our enemies? When I raise this commandment, the general response I get is: "Are you nuts?" When will we believe in the transformation of enemies into friends?
What's so shocking is that Jesus commands us to love our enemies not just because it's right; not just because it's moral; and not because it's the only practical solution; but because God loves God's enemies. This is the nature of God. Jesus wants us to be "sons and daughters of your God in heaven, for God makes God's sun rise on the bad and on the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and on the unjust.
I don't understand how Jesuit and Catholic colleges maintain ROTC programs, for example, where students pledge to "destroy the enemies of the United States." For that matter, I don't see how anyone can claim to follow Jesus and be a member of the U.S. Army, Navy or Air Force.
But this is an old argument. St. Augustine wrote long ago that sometimes the best way to love your enemies is to kill them. I think St. Augustine was wrong. He dismisses the teachings of Jesus with one sentence, and was widely praised for his insight. His comment gave birth to the just war theory. But I say: You cannot love your enemies by preparing or threatening to kill them, much less actually killing them.
Jesus forbids killing. His universal love outlaws violence. He never justifies war. He oppose every military, every weapon, every intent to kill. So from now on, we oppose Bush's war on Iraq, the Pentagon's imperial military bases, and nuclear weapons at Los Alamos and Livermore Labs because we are sons and daughters of the God of peace. We are people who love our enemies.
This is precisely what my friends in Australia have been doing. The Pine Gap Four were recently found guilty of trespassing at the U.S. military base in the remote northern territories, but thankfully not sentenced to prison (see www.pinegapontrial.blogspot.com). Others, including my friends Carole Powell of Brisbane and Simon Moyle of Melbourne, trespassed last week during the U.S. military exercises off the Northeast coast and face trial in August. (And by the way, my friend Jarrod McKenna of Perth turned me on to a great new book, Living the Sermon on the Mount" by Glen Stassen, that I highly recommend.)
Imagine if every priest and bishop spoke out with love for our enemies, like Daniel Berrigan? Imagine if every Catholic traveled abroad to targeted places like Iraq and Iran to love our enemies, like Kathy Kelly? The question is: Dare we practice such love? How do we love our enemies? How do we stop our government from killing them? If we are to obey Jesus, we need to move this reflection from abstract theory to concrete action.
Once we start loving our enemies, government officials, soldiers and patriotic citizens will persecute us. That's a sign that we've begun to obey Jesus. That's why, I think, Jesus immediately follows this commandment with a second about prayer.
We are told to pray, not for ourselves, not even for our enemies, but for our persecutors -- for those people who are mad at us for loving the people of Iraq, for those who harass us, punish us, even arrest us. And so, as Sermon on the Mount people, we try to love the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and pray for those who oppose our universal love.
Friday, June 22, 2007
July 7- Live Earth letter from Al Gore
Dear friends,
On July 7, more than 2 billion people will join together to watch the Live Earth concerts and demonstrate to our leaders that the time has come to solve the climate crisis.
Wherever you are that day, you can be part of the action. At events around the world, we are going to convert the potential energy of Live Earth into a global campaign. In thousands of homes, people will invite their friends and neighbors to watch the concerts and join the movement.
In order to make these parties truly global, I've decided to partner with Avaaz. The 385,000 Avaaz members from every corner of the world, who mobilized to pressure the G8, amazed me. Avaaz's work to give ordinary people around the world a powerful voice in global decision-making is inspiring, and your organizing around the G8 Summit made a significant difference. Now we have the opportunity to expand on that great effort.
Will you commit to organize a Live Earth house party on July 7th? The parties will be fun--and they'll make a difference. If you've got a few friends and a TV, you've got everything you need.
7.7.07 will be the one opportunity we have to bring millions of new people into our campaign. We cannot let it slip by.
If you host a Live Earth Party, you'll have access to a special video I've made to urge people to take action. Together, I know we can convince everyone attending these parties to get involved. In a few short hours, you and your friends can watch the concert, take action -- and, at the end, upload a photo from your event that will be accessible to others taking part throughout the world. Through these parties, we can reach more people than ever before and build a truly global movement to solve the climate crisis.
Holding a Live Earth party is easy. All you need is a television and a few friends.
We will provide you with all the tools you need. Sign up as a party host by visiting:
Live Earth will be a unique moment when the uninterrupted and undivided attention of the world will be focused on the climate crisis. I need your help to make it count.
Thank you,
Al Gore
On July 7, more than 2 billion people will join together to watch the Live Earth concerts and demonstrate to our leaders that the time has come to solve the climate crisis.
Wherever you are that day, you can be part of the action. At events around the world, we are going to convert the potential energy of Live Earth into a global campaign. In thousands of homes, people will invite their friends and neighbors to watch the concerts and join the movement.
In order to make these parties truly global, I've decided to partner with Avaaz. The 385,000 Avaaz members from every corner of the world, who mobilized to pressure the G8, amazed me. Avaaz's work to give ordinary people around the world a powerful voice in global decision-making is inspiring, and your organizing around the G8 Summit made a significant difference. Now we have the opportunity to expand on that great effort.
Will you commit to organize a Live Earth house party on July 7th? The parties will be fun--and they'll make a difference. If you've got a few friends and a TV, you've got everything you need.
7.7.07 will be the one opportunity we have to bring millions of new people into our campaign. We cannot let it slip by.
If you host a Live Earth Party, you'll have access to a special video I've made to urge people to take action. Together, I know we can convince everyone attending these parties to get involved. In a few short hours, you and your friends can watch the concert, take action -- and, at the end, upload a photo from your event that will be accessible to others taking part throughout the world. Through these parties, we can reach more people than ever before and build a truly global movement to solve the climate crisis.
Holding a Live Earth party is easy. All you need is a television and a few friends.
We will provide you with all the tools you need. Sign up as a party host by visiting:
Live Earth will be a unique moment when the uninterrupted and undivided attention of the world will be focused on the climate crisis. I need your help to make it count.
Thank you,
Al Gore
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Activists risk their lives for peace - Talisman Sabre
Media release
19 June 2007
Several groups of pacifists entered the Shoalwater Water Bay Training Area in order to disrupt the Talisman Sabre military exercise. Talisman Sabre, involving US and Australian troops, begins its field component today.
A statement from the groups reads:
We are a group of people concerned about peace and our environment.
Our consciences will not allow us to stand by while troops prepare for more war.
We do not want to see this environment destroyed or exploited for these purposes.?
We plan to stay inside the training area for as long as possible.?
Talisman Sabre is the largest joint military exercise hosted by Australia. 20,000 US troops are participating in this exercise which takes place in numerous training areas and support sites throughout Queensland, the Northern Territory and surrounding seas.
Hundreds of people from around the country have gathered in Yeppoon as part of a Peace Convergence opposing the Talisman Sabre military exercise. Further nonviolent actions have been planned for the week.
For more information visit http://www.blogger.com/www.peaceconvergence.com
Media spokesperson: Treena Lenthall 043 2563 967 Film footage available
--
Peace Convergence
e: info@peaceconvergence.com
w: http://www.blogger.com/www.peaceconvergence.com
m: 043 2563 967
stop the exercises close the bases end the wars
Friday, June 15, 2007
PINE GAP - Sentence - No Jail for Pine Gap4
Statement on behalf of the Pine Gap 4:
We want to thank all our supporters in Alice Springs, across Australia and throughout the world.
We renew our commitment to non-violent resistance, which is a powerful way that ordinary people can make a difference in the world.We encourage others to take their next step in rising up against war. Join your local peace group, or if you can, support actions challenging the US-Australian war games - Operation Talisman Sabre - that will start next week in Queensland. "The choice now is not between violence and non-violence" said Dr Martin Luther King, "the choice is between non-violence and non-existence".
Four Christian pacifists are celebrating after being spared prison sentences in the Northern Territory Supreme Court today.
The Pine Gap Four, found guilty of breaching the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952, have been handed minor fines.
The public gallery erupted into song, applause, cheers and hugs and the feeling of victory and vindication was in the air.
Justice Sally Thomas noted their good behaviour and co-operation in the sentencing decision.
"All four were very genuine in the cause they sought to espouse," said Justice Thomas, "however their actions - no matter for what cause - cannot justify the breaking of the law."
Jim Dowling has been fined $1250, Bryan Law fined $1000, Donna Mulhearn fined $450 and Adele Goldie fined $550. They have also been asked to contribute $2500 each towards cost of fence repair.
Justice Thomas noted that Pine Gap has a significant history of protest and trespass, with past trespassers being fined. "It's a big step up to talk about a jail sentence," she said in court on Thursday. "A prison sentence is one of last resort."
Justice Sally Thomas had allowed the defendants to present evidence throughout the 11 day trial including their beliefs about Pine Gap's role in the war in Iraq which resulted in civilian deaths and suffering. She later instructed the jury to disregard that evidence and any sympathies they might have for the defendant's beliefs.
When Bryan Law of Cairns, Jim Dowling and Adele Goldie of Brisbane and Donna Mulhearn of Sydney entered Pine Gap's 'Prohibited Area' to conduct a Citizens' Inspection on December 9th 2005, they were well aware of the potential consequences. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock took their actions seriously enough to charge the group under the 55 year old untested Defence (Special Undertakings) Act.
The consequences however are far greater than fines and criminal convictions. The Pine Gap Four conducted their inspection to disrupt the machinery of war and to draw Australia's attention to the missile guidance system in its heart.
Following sentencing today Mr Law said "We have still won. For me it's not about trespass, it's a moral issue.
"Our action was and is calculated to effectively intervene into the war-fighting operation of Pine Gap, under the public gaze, as part of an effective campaign to limit the damage from war in Iraq in the short term, and bring about global disarmament in the medium term.
"What's moral is not always legal, and what is immoral is not always illegal. If there is a minor law that has to be broken in the pursuit of moral faith then I will break it."
Through tears Ms Mulhearn explained "I thought it was the least I could do given the magnitude of the crime I was trying to prevent. I was trying to fulfil the promise I had made to the people of Iraq to do something to stop the war.
"What I did was an attempt to transform a military base into something open and honest."
In the final moments of the trial, Ms Mulhearn pointed to the stained hiking boots she was wearing. She had worn them in an Iraqi marketplace, in the aftermath of a US bomb.
"Now, in this court room, there is blood on my boots. Blood of a human being because of the targeting decisions made in Pine Gap," she said.
Mr Dowling told the jury "We went to that base to resist what is essentially a war crime – the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians."
Ms Goldie also noted Pine Gap's role in crimes against humanity."My action to try to prevent crimes of such tremendous gravity is lawful," she said, referring to the Nuremberg Principles.
During cross-examination Ms Mulhearn questioned the Deputy Chief of Pine Gap, Mr Michael Burgess, about the severity of the charges. She asked Mr Burgess about the demonstrations of 1987 during which hundreds of people entered the declared 'Prohibited Area'.
"Are you aware how many of them were charged under this act?" she asked Mr Burgess."I believe none of them," Mr Burgess replied.
The shroud of secrecy surrounding Pine Gap was maintained during the trial. Justice Thomas ruled in favour of the Commonwealth's submission for public interest immunity at the start of the case. The ruling stated: "Information as to operations of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap except as may be disclosed by the prosecution brief is not relevant to any issue in this case."
Defendant Jim Dowling asked in response: "So they're allowed to give the information they want without us getting a chance to query that?" Justice Thomas concurred.
The Pine Gap Four had already successfully challenged a suppression order made in a secret court in Darwin in 2006 in relation to ASIO's involvement in their arrest.
The question of parliamentary privilege was raised when the defendants flagged their intention to tender a Joint Standing Committee Report from 1999** as part of their case. Ms Mulhearn had spoken against the Commonwealth's submission, claiming it was against the "vibe" of the act.
"As an unrepresented defendant I think I'm allowed to quote from 'The Castle', Your Honour," she said. "I think it's the 'vibe' – that wasn't the vibe of this legislation at all."
Although the report is on the public record, Justice Thomas ruled it inadmissible due to section 16 (3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act of 1688. Ms Mulhearn expressed grave concerns that this could result in an unfair trial.
In a surreal move described by one defendant as "more Alice in Wonderland tactics", prosecuting counsel asked that a model of Pine Gap base be forfeit to the Commonwealth on the basis that it contravened the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 section 2 ("A person is guilty of an offence if the person obtains, collects, uses.. a photograph, sketch, plan, model.. [of] a prohibited area. Maximum penalty: seven years."). The model had been brought to the courthouse on June 5 th to clarify a point of evidence. It was constructed prior to the Citizens' Inspection of the base, using Google Earth photographs for reference.
The defendants had planned to use sections 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 of the Criminal Code (necessity, defence of others etc.) to legally justify their actions, but these were ruled inadmissible by Justice Thomas on Tuesday. Nine barristers and lawyers were present for the prosecution case, while the Pine Gap Four represented themselves.
The trial has been closely followed by the international legal community, concerned that the Attorney General's intervention and the use of an archaic act reflect poorly on freedom of speech and political expression in Australia.
** (Report 26: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/reports/report26/report26.pdf)
We want to thank all our supporters in Alice Springs, across Australia and throughout the world.
We renew our commitment to non-violent resistance, which is a powerful way that ordinary people can make a difference in the world.We encourage others to take their next step in rising up against war. Join your local peace group, or if you can, support actions challenging the US-Australian war games - Operation Talisman Sabre - that will start next week in Queensland. "The choice now is not between violence and non-violence" said Dr Martin Luther King, "the choice is between non-violence and non-existence".
Four Christian pacifists are celebrating after being spared prison sentences in the Northern Territory Supreme Court today.
The Pine Gap Four, found guilty of breaching the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952, have been handed minor fines.
The public gallery erupted into song, applause, cheers and hugs and the feeling of victory and vindication was in the air.
Justice Sally Thomas noted their good behaviour and co-operation in the sentencing decision.
"All four were very genuine in the cause they sought to espouse," said Justice Thomas, "however their actions - no matter for what cause - cannot justify the breaking of the law."
Jim Dowling has been fined $1250, Bryan Law fined $1000, Donna Mulhearn fined $450 and Adele Goldie fined $550. They have also been asked to contribute $2500 each towards cost of fence repair.
Justice Thomas noted that Pine Gap has a significant history of protest and trespass, with past trespassers being fined. "It's a big step up to talk about a jail sentence," she said in court on Thursday. "A prison sentence is one of last resort."
Justice Sally Thomas had allowed the defendants to present evidence throughout the 11 day trial including their beliefs about Pine Gap's role in the war in Iraq which resulted in civilian deaths and suffering. She later instructed the jury to disregard that evidence and any sympathies they might have for the defendant's beliefs.
When Bryan Law of Cairns, Jim Dowling and Adele Goldie of Brisbane and Donna Mulhearn of Sydney entered Pine Gap's 'Prohibited Area' to conduct a Citizens' Inspection on December 9th 2005, they were well aware of the potential consequences. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock took their actions seriously enough to charge the group under the 55 year old untested Defence (Special Undertakings) Act.
The consequences however are far greater than fines and criminal convictions. The Pine Gap Four conducted their inspection to disrupt the machinery of war and to draw Australia's attention to the missile guidance system in its heart.
Following sentencing today Mr Law said "We have still won. For me it's not about trespass, it's a moral issue.
"Our action was and is calculated to effectively intervene into the war-fighting operation of Pine Gap, under the public gaze, as part of an effective campaign to limit the damage from war in Iraq in the short term, and bring about global disarmament in the medium term.
"What's moral is not always legal, and what is immoral is not always illegal. If there is a minor law that has to be broken in the pursuit of moral faith then I will break it."
Through tears Ms Mulhearn explained "I thought it was the least I could do given the magnitude of the crime I was trying to prevent. I was trying to fulfil the promise I had made to the people of Iraq to do something to stop the war.
"What I did was an attempt to transform a military base into something open and honest."
In the final moments of the trial, Ms Mulhearn pointed to the stained hiking boots she was wearing. She had worn them in an Iraqi marketplace, in the aftermath of a US bomb.
"Now, in this court room, there is blood on my boots. Blood of a human being because of the targeting decisions made in Pine Gap," she said.
Mr Dowling told the jury "We went to that base to resist what is essentially a war crime – the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians."
Ms Goldie also noted Pine Gap's role in crimes against humanity."My action to try to prevent crimes of such tremendous gravity is lawful," she said, referring to the Nuremberg Principles.
During cross-examination Ms Mulhearn questioned the Deputy Chief of Pine Gap, Mr Michael Burgess, about the severity of the charges. She asked Mr Burgess about the demonstrations of 1987 during which hundreds of people entered the declared 'Prohibited Area'.
"Are you aware how many of them were charged under this act?" she asked Mr Burgess."I believe none of them," Mr Burgess replied.
The shroud of secrecy surrounding Pine Gap was maintained during the trial. Justice Thomas ruled in favour of the Commonwealth's submission for public interest immunity at the start of the case. The ruling stated: "Information as to operations of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap except as may be disclosed by the prosecution brief is not relevant to any issue in this case."
Defendant Jim Dowling asked in response: "So they're allowed to give the information they want without us getting a chance to query that?" Justice Thomas concurred.
The Pine Gap Four had already successfully challenged a suppression order made in a secret court in Darwin in 2006 in relation to ASIO's involvement in their arrest.
The question of parliamentary privilege was raised when the defendants flagged their intention to tender a Joint Standing Committee Report from 1999** as part of their case. Ms Mulhearn had spoken against the Commonwealth's submission, claiming it was against the "vibe" of the act.
"As an unrepresented defendant I think I'm allowed to quote from 'The Castle', Your Honour," she said. "I think it's the 'vibe' – that wasn't the vibe of this legislation at all."
Although the report is on the public record, Justice Thomas ruled it inadmissible due to section 16 (3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act of 1688. Ms Mulhearn expressed grave concerns that this could result in an unfair trial.
In a surreal move described by one defendant as "more Alice in Wonderland tactics", prosecuting counsel asked that a model of Pine Gap base be forfeit to the Commonwealth on the basis that it contravened the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 section 2 ("A person is guilty of an offence if the person obtains, collects, uses.. a photograph, sketch, plan, model.. [of] a prohibited area. Maximum penalty: seven years."). The model had been brought to the courthouse on June 5 th to clarify a point of evidence. It was constructed prior to the Citizens' Inspection of the base, using Google Earth photographs for reference.
The defendants had planned to use sections 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 of the Criminal Code (necessity, defence of others etc.) to legally justify their actions, but these were ruled inadmissible by Justice Thomas on Tuesday. Nine barristers and lawyers were present for the prosecution case, while the Pine Gap Four represented themselves.
The trial has been closely followed by the international legal community, concerned that the Attorney General's intervention and the use of an archaic act reflect poorly on freedom of speech and political expression in Australia.
** (Report 26: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/reports/report26/report26.pdf)
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Pine Gap 4 face charges for their non violent action.
Dear Friends of Peace
If you would like to receive emails of the Pine Gap 4 trial proceedings, please send an email to Pinegap4supporters@yahoogroups.com asking to be added to the list .
As Christian pacifists and activists opposed to war we were driven to take non-violent action in the tradition inspired by Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jnr and Dorothy Day. Our goal is to expose the truth about Pine Gap and its connection to the killing of civilians through state terror.
Excerpt from their live journal website site.http://pinegap6.livejournal.com/
Lobbying Members of Parliament _ Pine Gap 4
Dear friends
Lobbying Members of Parliament is an effective way to shift the political spotlight onto the secret activities of Pine Gap and its link to the war in Iraq.
If MP’s believe their constituents are concerned about a particular issue, they will sit up and take notice – particularly in marginal seats with an election coming up!
Unfortunately Australian Members of Parliament have been largely kept in the dark about Pine Gap - a reminder of this will hopefully make them uncomfortable and begin to ask questions. If they are inundated with letters from constituents, they will have no choice but to ask questions!
Letters to MPs will carry more weight when written in your own words, but we have pasted below two sample letters as examples of the kind of messages we want to get through to them. So feel free to use these ideas in your own style. Yo could also refer to our suggested “Letters to the Editor” from the previous message, see www.groups.yahoo.com/group/pinegap4supporters
!
Also pasted below is the transcript of a story by SBS Dateline back in 2000 when the Joint Standing Committee on treaties was forbidden from getting information about Pine Gap when it was making a decision about whether to extend the treaty. At the same time it was noted that US members of Congress are given regular access to Pine Gap!
The transcript makes for chilling reading and should disturb all of us – especially your local MP!
You will find details of your MP’s e-mail and postal address on this site
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/index.htm
And Senators at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/index.htm
Be sure to write to the Defence Minister Brendan Nelson at:
PO Box 6022House of RepresentativesParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7800Fax: (02) 6273 4118
ministerfordefence@defence.gov.au
And Shadow Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon at:
PO Box 6022House of RepresentativesParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 4404Fax: (02) 6277 8479
Email: J.Fitzgibbon.MP@aph.gov.au
And of course the Prime Minister!
PO Box 6022House of RepresentativesParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7700Fax: (02) 6273 4100
e-mail from this link: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm
and the Opposition Leader:
PO Box 6022House of Representatives<>Parliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 4022Fax: (02) 6277 8495
Email: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au
Lobbying Members of Parliament is an effective way to shift the political spotlight onto the secret activities of Pine Gap and its link to the war in Iraq.
If MP’s believe their constituents are concerned about a particular issue, they will sit up and take notice – particularly in marginal seats with an election coming up!
Unfortunately Australian Members of Parliament have been largely kept in the dark about Pine Gap - a reminder of this will hopefully make them uncomfortable and begin to ask questions. If they are inundated with letters from constituents, they will have no choice but to ask questions!
Letters to MPs will carry more weight when written in your own words, but we have pasted below two sample letters as examples of the kind of messages we want to get through to them. So feel free to use these ideas in your own style. Yo could also refer to our suggested “Letters to the Editor” from the previous message, see www.groups.yahoo.com/group/pinegap4supporters
!
Also pasted below is the transcript of a story by SBS Dateline back in 2000 when the Joint Standing Committee on treaties was forbidden from getting information about Pine Gap when it was making a decision about whether to extend the treaty. At the same time it was noted that US members of Congress are given regular access to Pine Gap!
The transcript makes for chilling reading and should disturb all of us – especially your local MP!
You will find details of your MP’s e-mail and postal address on this site
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/index.htm
And Senators at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/index.htm
Be sure to write to the Defence Minister Brendan Nelson at:
PO Box 6022House of RepresentativesParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7800Fax: (02) 6273 4118
ministerfordefence@defence.gov.au
And Shadow Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon at:
PO Box 6022House of RepresentativesParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 4404Fax: (02) 6277 8479
Email: J.Fitzgibbon.MP@aph.gov.au
And of course the Prime Minister!
PO Box 6022House of RepresentativesParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7700Fax: (02) 6273 4100
e-mail from this link: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm
and the Opposition Leader:
PO Box 6022House of Representatives<>Parliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 4022Fax: (02) 6277 8495
Email: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au
Sunday, June 3, 2007
WATAC Conference July 20-21, 2007- Joan Chittister
Joan Chittister OSB coming to WATAC Conference on July 20-21, 2007
Women Making the Vision Happen -
Saturday and Sunday 21st & 22 nd July 2007
Keynote Speakers:
Joan Chittister OSB
Ann Gilroy SJS
Canterbury Park Function Centre
King St.
Canterbury
Registration and information
Phone: 02 9520 9409 email: watac@watac.net
Conference cost: $275
9 - 13 July 2007 Ecology & Spirituality
Tabgha Centre for Ecology and Spirituality is offering a one week course from July 9 - 13th, 2007.
The content of the course will explore a Christian Ecological perspective in a changing world.
For more information please contact
Veronica Littleton OSU or Kay McGrath RGS
Tabgha Centre, 52 Montrose Rd,
Cabarlah, Qld. 4352
Telephone 0746969700
Email: tabgha@bigpond.com
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Costa Rica to Cease Training at the School of Americas
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias announced Wednesday that Costa Rica will cease to send police to train at the U.S. Army Ft. Benning facility after citing its history of involvement in military coups and human rights abuses throughout Latin America.Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, made the decision after talks with a delegation of the School of the Americas Watch, including the Rev. Roy Bourgeois and Lisa Sullivan Rodriguez.
The human rights advocacy group has campaigned since 1990 for the closure of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as the School for the Americas (SOA), located at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Costa Rica has no army but has sent approximately 2,600 police officers over the years to be trained at the school. Minor Masis, leader of Costa Rica's former "Comando Cobra" anti-drug squad attended the School in 1991 and returned to Costa Rica, only to serve a 42-year jail term for rape and murder committed during a 1992 drug raid.
Costa Rica currently has three policemen at the center. "When the courses end for the three policemen we are not going to send any more," Arias said.Costa Rica is the fourth country to announce a withdrawal from the SOA/WHINSEC. In 2006, the governments of Argentina and Uruguay announced that they would cease all training at the school, becoming the second and third countries to announce a cessation of training. In January of 2004, Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela would no longer send troops to train at the school. Costa Rica's withdrawal from WHINSEC is a great victory for human rights in Latin America. With this major breakthrough, Costa Rica adds its name to the list of countries who are rejecting the destructive approach of institutions such as the SOA/WHINSEC. Combat training and military spending as a means to "solve" social problems do not bring peace and democracy.
The Peace Army of Costa Rica celebrates that Costa Rica has withdrawn from the School of the Americas. We congratulate our friend, Rita Calvert, for bringing Father Roy to Costa Rica as he was responsible for the success of this effort.
Sincerely,Rita Marie JohnsonRasur Foundation
The human rights advocacy group has campaigned since 1990 for the closure of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as the School for the Americas (SOA), located at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Costa Rica has no army but has sent approximately 2,600 police officers over the years to be trained at the school. Minor Masis, leader of Costa Rica's former "Comando Cobra" anti-drug squad attended the School in 1991 and returned to Costa Rica, only to serve a 42-year jail term for rape and murder committed during a 1992 drug raid.
Costa Rica currently has three policemen at the center. "When the courses end for the three policemen we are not going to send any more," Arias said.Costa Rica is the fourth country to announce a withdrawal from the SOA/WHINSEC. In 2006, the governments of Argentina and Uruguay announced that they would cease all training at the school, becoming the second and third countries to announce a cessation of training. In January of 2004, Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela would no longer send troops to train at the school. Costa Rica's withdrawal from WHINSEC is a great victory for human rights in Latin America. With this major breakthrough, Costa Rica adds its name to the list of countries who are rejecting the destructive approach of institutions such as the SOA/WHINSEC. Combat training and military spending as a means to "solve" social problems do not bring peace and democracy.
The Peace Army of Costa Rica celebrates that Costa Rica has withdrawn from the School of the Americas. We congratulate our friend, Rita Calvert, for bringing Father Roy to Costa Rica as he was responsible for the success of this effort.
Sincerely,Rita Marie JohnsonRasur Foundation
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Pine Gap 4 facing charges for their non violent action.
Dear Friends of Peace
If you would like to receive emails of the Pine Gap 4 trial proceedings, please send an email to Pinegap4supporters@yahoogroups.com asking to be added to the list .
As Christian pacifists and activists opposed to war we were driven to take non-violent action in the tradition inspired by Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jnr and Dorothy Day. Our goal is to expose the truth about Pine Gap and its connection to the killing of civilians through state terror. Excerpt from their live journal website site.http://pinegap6.livejournal.com/
Monday, May 21, 2007
Vatican Address to U.N. Forum on Indigenous Issues
"Show Flexibility and Social Farsightedness"
NEW YORK, MAY 17, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations, gave Wednesday to the 6th session of the permanent forum on indigenous issues of the U.N. Economic and Social Council on the special theme: Territories, lands and natural resources.
Madam Chair,
First of all, my delegation would like to congratulate you and all the officers elected this year and to wish you well in the important task of maintaining the forward momentum in favor of indigenous peoples already achieved by this permanent forum since the start of this century.
From the time the forum met last year, much has happened regarding steps to improve the exercise of the rights of indigenous peoples at the national and international levels, particularly in light of the forum's special theme this year of territories, lands and natural resources. The postponement of the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) marked a disappointing moment.
After 24 years' discussion in a working group of the Commission on Human Rights, the draft declaration was taken up at the first session of the Human Rights Council and, after a recorded vote, was duly sent to the General Assembly for adoption as part of the first Report of the Human Rights Council.
My delegation would like to express its regret that the adoption of the draft declaration was postponed. In this regard, we would like to draw attention to the benefits which the existence of such a human rights instrument would entail especially for the very poorest living in rural areas, often of indigenous origin and often marginalized by the modern world, and those who could be empowered to contribute much more to the political and economic life where they live.
Various objections have been raised against the draft Declaration as it currently stands. Some say that the DRIP contradicts national constitutions and that self-determination only concerns those who used to live under colonial rule. Others suggest that the DRIP is unclear on what constitutes "indigenous people," while still claiming to support the declaration, in spite of substantive concerns.
While respecting the motivations behind each position, the Holy See wishes to reiterate the particular importance it attaches to the instrument under consideration and encourages U.N. member states to show flexibility and social farsightedness with a view to reaching an agreement during the present session of the General Assembly.
My delegation believes that such a political gesture would not only profit the poorest and most excluded citizens in both rich and poor countries of the world, but would also enhance peace among peoples and foster the just and equitable enjoyment of human rights by all. To judge by events in the Third Committee last autumn, there appear to exist genuine concerns that the DRIP could lead to demands that might break the fragile links forged at great cost among disparate tribal groups born as states within the last 50 or so years. Some also seem to fear that the declaration may become a threat to sovereignty or to state revenues from natural resources.
Such concerns however should not marginalize the best interest of the poorest peoples in such resource-rich territories; nor should states be oblivious to the economic progress for all that could be achieved by a greater regard for the particular genius of indigenous peoples and what they may be willing to contribute when their good will, not just their free, prior and informed consent, is sought and received. The rush to exploit resources which we are witnessing in many places not only puts the natural habitat under stress; there is sometimes little evidence of any good in political, social or economic terms, in favor of the peoples where such resources are found. Given the universal destination of the world's goods, it is hardly surprising when peoples react to the departure of resources from their lands, while they see little coming back to those lands in return.
Madam Chair, this is why the Holy See believes that we should all work toward a consensus adoption of the declaration; but even the absence of such a consensus should not be a pretext for delaying the vindication of the legitimate concerns of indigenous peoples. States have legitimate concerns regarding sovereignty, citizenship, equality and the sane and equitable exploitation of natural resources, but these questions should not allow progress on indigenous peoples' equally legitimate rights and concerns to be postponed "sine die."
Thank you, Madam Chair.
NEW YORK, MAY 17, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations, gave Wednesday to the 6th session of the permanent forum on indigenous issues of the U.N. Economic and Social Council on the special theme: Territories, lands and natural resources.
Madam Chair,
First of all, my delegation would like to congratulate you and all the officers elected this year and to wish you well in the important task of maintaining the forward momentum in favor of indigenous peoples already achieved by this permanent forum since the start of this century.
From the time the forum met last year, much has happened regarding steps to improve the exercise of the rights of indigenous peoples at the national and international levels, particularly in light of the forum's special theme this year of territories, lands and natural resources. The postponement of the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) marked a disappointing moment.
After 24 years' discussion in a working group of the Commission on Human Rights, the draft declaration was taken up at the first session of the Human Rights Council and, after a recorded vote, was duly sent to the General Assembly for adoption as part of the first Report of the Human Rights Council.
My delegation would like to express its regret that the adoption of the draft declaration was postponed. In this regard, we would like to draw attention to the benefits which the existence of such a human rights instrument would entail especially for the very poorest living in rural areas, often of indigenous origin and often marginalized by the modern world, and those who could be empowered to contribute much more to the political and economic life where they live.
Various objections have been raised against the draft Declaration as it currently stands. Some say that the DRIP contradicts national constitutions and that self-determination only concerns those who used to live under colonial rule. Others suggest that the DRIP is unclear on what constitutes "indigenous people," while still claiming to support the declaration, in spite of substantive concerns.
While respecting the motivations behind each position, the Holy See wishes to reiterate the particular importance it attaches to the instrument under consideration and encourages U.N. member states to show flexibility and social farsightedness with a view to reaching an agreement during the present session of the General Assembly.
My delegation believes that such a political gesture would not only profit the poorest and most excluded citizens in both rich and poor countries of the world, but would also enhance peace among peoples and foster the just and equitable enjoyment of human rights by all. To judge by events in the Third Committee last autumn, there appear to exist genuine concerns that the DRIP could lead to demands that might break the fragile links forged at great cost among disparate tribal groups born as states within the last 50 or so years. Some also seem to fear that the declaration may become a threat to sovereignty or to state revenues from natural resources.
Such concerns however should not marginalize the best interest of the poorest peoples in such resource-rich territories; nor should states be oblivious to the economic progress for all that could be achieved by a greater regard for the particular genius of indigenous peoples and what they may be willing to contribute when their good will, not just their free, prior and informed consent, is sought and received. The rush to exploit resources which we are witnessing in many places not only puts the natural habitat under stress; there is sometimes little evidence of any good in political, social or economic terms, in favor of the peoples where such resources are found. Given the universal destination of the world's goods, it is hardly surprising when peoples react to the departure of resources from their lands, while they see little coming back to those lands in return.
Madam Chair, this is why the Holy See believes that we should all work toward a consensus adoption of the declaration; but even the absence of such a consensus should not be a pretext for delaying the vindication of the legitimate concerns of indigenous peoples. States have legitimate concerns regarding sovereignty, citizenship, equality and the sane and equitable exploitation of natural resources, but these questions should not allow progress on indigenous peoples' equally legitimate rights and concerns to be postponed "sine die."
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
