Bakhtiyaris
Ian Rintoul (GLW #647) professes to have a far greater knowledge of the Bakhtiyari case than he has. In fact David Corlett was almost entirely correct except in his assertion that Ali might well be from Pakistan. McGeough with his excellent work in Afghanistan debunked that once and for all.
In fact it was Rintoul and Cyrus Sarang who gave the information that Ali claimed to have lived in Quetta for two years that ultimately sealed the family's fate with Russell Skelton putting his two bobs worth on every given occasion.
Rintoul should read the GLW article that Sarah Stephen put together last year about the Pakistani documents and understand this very, very clearly.
No mention or thought of Quetta came up anywhere in any discussions except from himself and Sarang. It was never true and the Pakistani documents only turned up at the lawyers on August 30, 2002, long after the stupid trips to the wrong place in Afghanistan by Skelton and McLeod.
Ali did not lie or change his story throughout two RRT hearings, two MRT hearings, two Federal Court hearings and two full Federal Court hearings. Not one iota. Roqia's only mistake was to claim she came from Ali's village but she rectified that in January 2004 — long after the government had decided that the privative clause attached to Ali's RRT decision.
Rintoul promised to help me with maps and a statement long before the family were deported and didn't.
Let me say this very, very clearly so every one understands — the family were deported because of the British consulate drama and media exposure.
That's it. And Rintoul unwittingly helped with information that Ali lied about his past.
Corlett's book accurately reflects the story from the files I gave him with the family's permission.
Marilyn Shepherd
Kensington, NSW
Terrorism laws I
I went to a meeting recently where 200 people turned up to hear a solicitor explain the finer points of the Anti-Terrorist Act (No. 2), 2005.
The bill outlaws among other things: urging another person to overthrow the government, the constitution, the monarch or lawful authority by force or violence.
The legal term of recklessness applies too. So reckless force is a very open term open to interpretation.
He said the drafting of the sedition laws is very sloppy, as some very key words used in the bill are not defined at all, especially the words "force", "reckless force" and "urging" which are used repeatedly.
With this new law, I understand that if you speak to someone passionately about overthrowing the government and they interpret what you are saying as urging them to commit violent acts or use "force" to overthrow the government, you could be guilty of sedition, which has a maximum penalty of seven years. Even if you didn't think you were urging violence or force and you didn't do anything yourself.
But here's the rub — if "force" is not defined, then is a strike forceful? Is blockading a road peacefully or a logging road using force? If you ignore a police officer's lawful direction to stop protesting/marching/blockading you could be guilty of overthrowing lawful authority.
The other new thing here is that until now, you were innocent until proven guilty and usually you could only be found guilty of having committed a crime that involves taking an action. But now you could be found guilty of looking like you might be preparing to commit a crime.
For 200 years in Australia and hundreds of years before in UK law, you had to actually commit a crime before you could be put in jail, and judge and jury would make that decision. Now it can be illegal to plan to do something, or to urge someone else to do something.
I imagine the police may feel that in a case of real — as opposed to imagined or manufactured — terrorism, they would like to prevent those who might throw fuel on the fire — but, then, would media figures like John Elliot, Alan Jones and/or Howard be charged as saying things which "lead to conflict between groups"?
Jenni Cargill
Mullumbimby, NSW
Terrorism laws II
Philip Ruddock is misleading the public about the Anti-Terrorism Bill. The bill states that members of any association that simply urges disaffection against the federal government can be imprisoned as members of an "unlawful association". There is no need for jailed individuals to have personally urged disaffection, let alone for any group member to have incited public disorder or violence.
The attorney-general claims people can defend themselves by arguing they were, in good faith, trying to show that government policies were mistaken. However, the section of the bill that covers seditious intent does not include a "good faith" defence. Anyway, people should not face incarceration simply because they belong to a group that urges disaffection against government, even if "good faith" arguments have not been made.
The bill radically alters the law on seditious intent and is potentially very repressive. Ruddock should admit these fact and make drastic changes.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere, NSW
Democracy
Especially with what has been going on for the last few years under the Howard government, I've been increasingly thinking that despite all that it is cracked up to be, democracy sucks. But on the other hand, for democracy to be viable, surely there needs to be free press and viable opposition. Attacks on workers and civil liberties aside, I genuinely question if Australia can be called a democracy at this time.
Anne Cravem
Wentworthville, NSW
From Green Left Weekly, November 30, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.