Socialists call for defiance of anti-democratic pope visit laws

July 2, 2008

The Socialist Alliance today called on all people wanting to show their concern about the positions of Pope Benedict XIV on issues like same sex-marriage, condom use and abortion to collectively ignore the New South Wales government’s new powers to arrest and fine people up to $5500 for “causing annoyance” to World Youth Day participants.

(The new regulations, which were quietly gazetted by deputy premier John Watkins last Friday, could make it a crime to wear a t-shirt with an anti-papal message and empower police and volunteers with the State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service to stop a person engaging in conduct which “causes annoyance or inconvenience in a World Youth Day event”.)

“The Iemma government has lost it”, Dick Nichols, the Socialist Alliance National Coordinator said. “Faced with a peaceful July 19 protest against Pope Benedict’s mediaeval positions on issues like condom use, the ministerial clique in Macquarie Street has introduced laws that would be laughable if they weren’t such a violation of civil liberties.

Pic: Socialist Alliance member Rachel Evans is one of the main organisers of the NoToPope Coalition protest during the pope visit

“The laws give police the right to ban propaganda and strip-search people at hundreds of sites across the city, including at bus stops and train stations, checking to see if they are wearing an ‘offensive’ t-shirt.

“With their draconian regulations Iemma and Co. have decided to prevent the possibility of a Chaser-style stunt against the Pope by becoming a permanent Chaser skit themselves”, he said.

“These rules were deliberately gazetted while the parliament wasn’t sitting, stifling debate and removing parliament’s right to block them. So let’s all get those t-shirts out that proclaim our support for women’s rights, same-sex marriage and safe sex,” Nichols stated. “And then let Iemma and Co. try to apply their buffoonish laws against us.”

Nichols commented that the Iemma government was showing “weird” similarities to the autocratic and unanswerable papacy.

“Not content with pushing ahead with an electricity privatisation plan opposed by 80% of people in New South Wales Iemma’s comedy team has now introduced regulations opposed by 89% of respondents to an online Sydney Morning Herald poll.

“It is also spending around $86 million to support World Youth Day: whatever happened to the separation of church and state?”

The Socialist Alliance spokesperson predicted that “just like the heavy-handed police powers introduced in the lead up to APEC last year to intimidate people out of protesting, Iemma’s latest effort will have exactly the opposite effect to its intention. “Most rational people, including many Catholics, are opposed to the dangerous and antiquated policies of the Catholic hierarchy on condom use, abortion and homophobia. Now the Iemma government has attacked their freedom of expression they have a powerful additional motive to join the July 19 NoToPope Coalition protest”, he concluded.

Contact: Dick Nichols 02 9690 2508 or 0433 390 872

Steve Jolly, socialist electioneering, and sectarianism

Over at the very interesting group blog project LeftWrites, Socialist Party councilor for Yarra Council, Steve Jolly, has posted his "Balance sheet of Council work", giving his impressions of both successes and challenges that the role has entailed.

One interesting point from Jolly's arsenal is this:

"The approach we have taken as a party in using the Councillor position as a powerful auxiliary in the fight to build support for socialism has been to hit the ALP and the Greens at their weakest point."

Jolly goes on to show to some extent the degree to which the Greens have exposed themselves once in power as frequently little more than the left-reformist and opportunist cover for capitalist interests (both small and large). While admittedly the membership of the Greens is quite diverse - including many self-identifying socialists in their ranks; as well as those at the other end of the spectrum entirely - the politics which they are compelled into by their focus on electoral success over all other is one which exposes this strategy for what it is: opportunism.

Regardless of the subjective political views of the people involved, this is generally how the scenario finishes up. So the Greens were initially reticent to get involved in the APEC protests, because of their fear of a negative backlash in an election year. The wombats have heard accounts of Socialist Alliance members suffering the complaint of Greens members at polling booths that every Socialist vote that gave its preference to the Greens lost the Greens a much needed 50 cents per vote, and that they weren't getting enough of our preferences anyway. One such incident even included Kerry Nettle herself lodging said complaint (and in close proximity to an ALP campaigning pack of Garrett, Burgmann and Tebutt). Not to mention the general on-again-off-again approach of the Greens to movements in general - including even the environmental movement - as they gradually dissociate themselves from the "radical treehugging ratbags" image during the quest to pick up disaffected Liberal and "centre" (ie. "neither right nor left") votes.

It has, if you like, been one of the greatest successes of the Socialist Party's project in Yarra - to show that socialists can get elected, and can successfully use that position to expose the bankruptcy of the other parties - not just the blatant corruption and nepotism of the ALP and Liberals, but also the soft-opportunism of the Greens when in power. As points of interest, Jolly's vote in non-council elections subsequent to his election to council has increased, and there is no doubt that, utilised properly, positions like his can build real, lasting, non-ephemeral, support for socialism within communities and workplaces.

But we are still left with a problem - or a few, but they are related, and they diminish greatly the effect of having a socialist on council, unless they are overcome.

The Socialist Party has been campaigning in the one area solidly for years (decades even), and their membership (next to non-existent outside the area) is still relatively small even within Yarra, and Melbourne in general. It has a threadbare existence elsewhere, in numbers probably measurable on one or two hands.

This brings us to the crux. As the wombats raised recently, the Socialist Party has sent a letter to the International Socialist Organisation in response to the latter's call for a vote for the Greens in the Federal election, a position now also held by Socialist Alternative. The Socialist Party appeal - that socialists ought to support socialists candidates (even of different stripes) - is an eminently rational one. While we are less than confident that the call will be taken up, it is one that must be made, and made regularly.

This election will pose the socialist left in Australia with a curious situation (but unfortunately, none too rare). The Socialist Alliance (by far the largest of the socialist organisations, with hundreds of members in branches and at large across the country) has recently regained Federal registration, and will run across the country (not just in Melbourne). The Socialist Equality Party have also gained Federal registration (the first time since 1998), and will similarly be running. And the Socialist Party will be running as well, although in a more limited sphere. To add to the fracas, the Communist Party is trying to get registered (but will almost certainly fail).

All of which raises the very serious question: why can't these groups work together? This was indeed the aim of setting up the Socialist Alliance (although the three organisations just mentioned refused point-blank to join), but such an approach at this juncture need not mean the immediate formal alliance of the groups (although it would be preferable).

As pointed out in the previous post, the Socialist Alliance does not run in seats where other socialist organisations traditionally run (an exception might be in Marrickville, where the SEP also runs, but far less successfully, and as this is a core base for Socialist Alliance operations, and as the SEP only ever turn up around elections, the Socialist Alliance should have a genuine right, if not obligation, to run there). Furthermore, they also publicise the existence of the other candidates through Green Left Weekly.

It requires no great leap of the imagination that, having parallel campaigns, and almost entirely consanguineous politics, the different groups could work together. (To be honest, the wombats hold no great hope that the SEP will ever enter into this degree of civility with the rest of the left, but it remains to be hoped). THIS, and not merely the existence of the Socialist Party campaign, or it alongside the Socialist Alliance campaign, is the basis whereon the other groups of the left may be drawn back into taking a healthy position vis-a-vis who to call for a vote for. (It should be noted, however, that drawing organisations like Socialist Alternative into an actual organisation of left unity would be an immensely larger and more difficult task).

But it makes no sense - and indeed smacks of sectarianism - for socialist groups to outright ignore the existence of other socialist groups in an election and instead call for a Green vote. The higher the vote for socialism, the better an indicator we have (on one graph, at least) of the success of our work.

But we wish to post a qualifier. It is no good calling the ISO out for their sectarianism in ignoring a socialist campaign, and then ignoring a larger one yourself. So the wombats would like to finish on an imploratory note, to Steve Jolly and the Socialist Party in particular, and to the rest of the socialist left in general, to consider long and hard the benefits and logic of building left unity. A broader, more effective, socialist alliance, of one kind or another, is the only rational, genuine, and truly revolutionary, way forward. Our understanding is that the Socialist Alliance is open to negotiations and bona fide suggestions.

As we said only a week ago:

The wombats appeal to all the groups on the socialist left (and individuals, at that) to get over your petty differences (you have more in common than not), and unite in a single socialist alliance that will be worthy of the name, and can take socialism back from the fringe into the mainstream, into the unions, into the parliaments and streets, and into the 21st Century and beyond. As a wise old bearded German once said: "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."

APEC: Why the Stop Bush protest was such a victory

The wombats have been asked to post this contribution to a discussion taking place in the aftermath of the successful 10,000-15,000 strong anti-APEC "Stop Bush" protests held in Sydney last week, from Socialist Alliance members Pip Hinman and Alex Bainbridge, both of whom were involved in the Stop Bush Coalition which planned the protest. The detail of the debate is in the piece below, and so needs no repeating, but other groups' reports of the rally can be found here, and here.

Why the Stop Bush/ Make Howard History protest was a success

By Pip Hinman and Alex Bainbridge

Socialist Alliance

Why the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest was a success
By Pip Hinman and Alex Bainbridge
Socialist Alliance

The success of the Stop Bush protest on September 8 during APEC was not only a victory for the progressive movements, it revealed that the mass action tactics being advanced by the DSP/Resistance and the Socialist Alliance and others throughout the debates among the Stop Bush Coalition over how to organise this particular protest proved correct.

From the outset, since the Asia Pacific International Solidarity Conference in 2005, we argued that the visit of George Bush to Sydney for APEC would be the key mobilising draw card given the US-led role in Iraq and Afghanistan. We argued that despite how hated John Howard is, he would not pull the same attention.

Given that it was apparent for about a year that APEC would be close to an election, most people (rightly or wrongly) would be more interested in just voting him out.

We also argued that focusing on APEC as a summit protest would not work not only because APEC is not a significant trade organisation, even for the capitalists, but also because the post-Seattle anti-globalisation movement had, in all significant respects, become the anti-war movement in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and beyond.

Focus on Bush

The focus on Bush was disputed among the left: Solidarity and the International Socialist Organisation (caucusing with each other) were unconvinced, as was Socialist Alternative at the outset.

A Solidarity position paper sent to the Stop the War Coalition organising list on May 4 stated: "The biggest possible protest will be achieved by politically building our actions as an opportunity to mobilise against the Howard government's agenda (including its neo-liberal agenda for the region) to help kick them from office and build stronger movements in the process."

However, most were convinced that having a focus on APEC would not be a strong drawcard.

Solidarity, along with the ISO, until the last minute, argued that Howard had to be the protest's main focus.

Their reasoning was that: as Australia was hosting APEC; as Australian imperialism is increasing its militarisation of the Asia Pacific region; and as it cements an even closer alliance with US, having a focus on Howard would help build a movement to throw the Coalition out of office. While we agreed with the political critique of Australia's imperialist role in the region, we disagreed that the sentiment against Australia's role in the region, and the more abstract question of its alliance with the US, was enough to bring people out into the streets during APEC.

While the organised section of the anti-war movement has dwindled in Australia since 2004, with the invasion anniversary events shrinking to some 800 people in Sydney this year, we judged that the anti-war sentiment could be mobilised onto the streets when Bush was in Sydney. This was confirmed when US vice-president Dick Cheney made a surprise visit to Sydney in February. We had just two weeks to organise a response, and more than 500 people turned up to one protest, defying the police crack down, and about 150 to another the next day.

The following paragraphs are Solidarity's position (largely supported by the ISO throughout the debates) from their May position paper, a position its members were arguing right up until the protest on September 8.

"Within Stop Bush 07 committee, there has been a perspective that focussing on Bush, 'world's number one terrorist', and doing promotional work for this demonstration will bring large numbers of people and re-invigorate the anti war movement. This is demonstrative of a tendency [they mean Socialist Alliance] that has held back Stop the War Coalition since the February 2003 rallies - the idea that there is a big antiwar 'sentiment' in society that can be brought into action simply by promoting some particular rally."

But this is exactly what happened on September 8, and Solidarity is not honest enough to admit that they were wrong.

Solidarity continued:

"By itself Bush being here won't build big demonstrations. It will of course be a particularly significant focus and give poignancy to any demonstration such as we saw when Cheney was in town."

"But for the movement to be built and bigger numbers won to the importance of street demonstrations, Stop the War cannot fold into logistics for "stopping Bush", but must redouble its efforts to creating domestic political issues out of the international situation - linking the war to prominent local concerns of the day such as Workchoices ..."

Civil rights attacks

The 10,000-15,000 peaceful protest in Sydney proved Solidarity's perspective wrong. But rather than let facts get in the way, they are now arguing that it was their focus on the excluded persons' list that brought the massive crowd onto the streets. That despicable fear campaign by the state would have helped make people angry about the security overkill, but it did not bring people into the streets.

If anything, the lightening rod that made people decide to come out was the extreme lengths to which the state was prepared to go to keep people away, and to stop people from entering certain parts of the city - the security overkill - which the Chasers' stunt so well sent up. When the barricades went up, the water cannons, the snipers, the mobile police units, and the excluded people list came out, people were rightly enraged.

But being angry doesn't necessarily mean that will take action. The Stop Bush Coalition's emphasis on the need for these protests to be peaceful to draw in the largest numbers of people, and to show up the violence of Bush and Howard and the police state - put largely by DSP member Alex Bainbridge, media spokesperson for the Coalition - had a huge impact on people deciding to come out on the day. We know that because so many people, not members, have told us.

Relating to the unions

Solidarity agreed, rightly, that it was important to involve more groups - in particular climate change groups and the unions. But they were only prepared to work with those who shared their overall political perspective.

They paid lip service, at best, to wanting to work with the unions: the fact that the couple of unions which did decide to support the Stop Bush protests, the Maritime Union of Australia and the Fire Brigades Employees Union, stressed that they would only do so if the rally was peaceful was lost on Solidarity. And it was largely us, and ISO member Jim Casey from the Fire Brigades Employees Union, who did most of the work to get union support.

UnionsNSW had, early on this year, met and decided not to allow its union affiliates to support the Stop Bush Coalition protest, on the pretext that it did not want union flags to be mixed up with "protestor violence" as that would jeopardise Labor's chances of being reelected. This was how the left union, the CFMEU, explained it to one of the protest organisers. When it looked like the protest was growing, AFTINET decided to organise a stationary "protest" in Hyde Park, on the Friday, an opportunity for unions to be seen to be doing something about APEC.

While it was always clear that the Labor state government was preparing for a huge security operation for APEC, just how big that was to be was revealed with the new police powers laws being leaked to the media, and then all the equipment and numbers of police being assigned.

The militarisation of Sydney for APEC was clearly going to scare a lot of people away from joining the protest. But Solidarity, along with the ISO and some anarchists, were opposed to the Stop Bush Coalition declaring that the protest would be peaceful from the start. For them, this had pacifist connotations, and would send the wrong signal that the protestors were not defiant, or militant, enough!

While they continued with this ultra-left posturing right up until the very last minute, it did not receive majority support from non-aligned activists in the Stop Bush Coalition meetings.

Ultra left posturing

Solidarity and their anarchist friends scored a pyrrhic victory at the 500-strong convergence meeting the night before the protest when Ian Rintoul (a leader of Solidarity) put a counter motion to the first part of a motion being moved by the majority of the tactical committee about the march route.

This first part of the tactical committee's motion (moved in the name of Alex Bainbridge (Socialist Alliance), Anna Samson (Stop the War Coalition), Damien Lawson (Greens), Diane Fields (Socialist Alternative), Paddy Gibson (Solidarity) and Paul Garrett (MUA) was:

"That we confirm the planned march route for tomorrow's rally will be from Town Hall, down Park Street to Hyde Park North".

Solidarity's counter motion was: "That we reject the prohibition of demonstrations in the declared zone and declare that we will march to the police lines to assert our right to protest and our opposition to APEC, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to their nuclear agenda and to Workchoices and the attack on workers rights."

Solidarity's motion won 273 to 221, largely with the help of the Socialist Party, Workers Power, ISO, Alliance for Civil Disobedience Coordination, Latin America Solidarity Network - from Melbourne. From Sydney, Mutiny, Flare in the Void, and some others also supported it.

Ian Rintoul, at the time, admitted his motion would not actually change the march route. He knew that the Stop Bush Coalition had been informed by the NSW police that they would be lining the march route and that given the huge mobilisation of police, there would no chance of breaking through police lines. But he, and others, insisted that it was the "attitude" of the motion that was different.

Solidarity's motion was a posture, designed to make out that they were the "militants". This is despite their consistent refusal to take any serious responsibility for the overall organisation of the protest, a product of their lack of political confidence in the overall shape of the protest as supported by a majority at every Stop Bush Coalition meeting.

(Solidarity's lack of confidence in the rally and its political focus was confirmed again on the Saturday afternoon when two of their members admitted that they'd only expected 3000 people to show up. The Stop Bush Coalition had been publicly saying it had expected 5000 or more.)

The rest of the tactical committee's motion, which was unanimously adopted, was:

"That we plan a sit-down (or die-in) in the middle of the march

"That we endorse the list of planned speakers (overleaf)

"That we all on all groups and individuals to respect the unity and diversity of the Stop Bush/Make Howard History protest."

The tactical committee's motion had been discussed and moved by a majority of the tactical committee, although a member of Solidarity had implied on the Stop Bush organising list that the sit-down motion was his idea.

Having lost the overall political debate about tactics, Solidarity, and others, are now trying to scandalise the DSP, in particular, for not respecting a "democratic decision" of the convergence meeting to sit-down at the police lines.

This is untrue. As already mentioned, a lot of people did sit down, some many times, and a lot didn't (some because the ground was wet).

The biggest sin, apparently, was that Alex didn't announce that there would be sit-in from the platform!

After the first bracket of speakers, Alex went to the corner of George and Park Streets to organise to get a mobile sound system there for the sit-down and the middle bracket of speakers. But getting any sound to that point was difficult given the police obstruction and size of the march. In any case, the unions led the march off, and everyone starting moving, although a section at the back of the march remained at that corner.

The MUA and others organised a longish sit-down at the front of the march. Others organised their own - to make a statement that the city belonged to us, not the cops. The inadequate sound system meant that a lot of people with megaphones, including Alex, and Paul and Warren from the MUA, and the union secretary from Geelong (also a Socialist Alliance member), urged people to sit down.

The criticism that the motion's "politics of defiance" and our rejection of the exclusion zone was not put from the platform is also absurd. The Stop Bush Coalition, from the beginning, has stressed that it did not accept the special police powers and the exclusion zone (organising public meetings around this very theme, and constantly putting this line through its media work). This political line was not only put at the rally by the co-chairs, it was also put by most, if not all, of the speakers.

The criticism that the motion was to march to the police lines and this didn't happen is bizarre. The rally was already at police lines before the march had even started to move!

Paul (MUA), Paddy (Solidarity) and Alex were at the corner of Park and George Streets and agreed that a sit-down would happen when the front of the march reached the second set of lights. Paddy agreed with this course of action. Alex announced it over the megaphone as the rally marched off down Park Street.

We were at the police lines - we couldn't have gone any closer without trying to bust through them. But is this what Solidarity wanted to do?

The questions that Solidarity (and the ISO) should be asked include:

Why did they want a clash with the police?

How would that have advanced the confidence of the movement?

If they had decided to have a clash, it would have only have fed into the police operation, and it certainly would have helped John Howard in his much hoped-for post-APEC electoral boost.

The fact that the majority who came to the protest denied Howard his much-needed APEC electoral boost with our determination to carry out a peaceful protest in the face of huge provocation.

This shows that the mass action approach which the DSP, Resistance and Socialist Alliance had argued for in the Stop Bush Coalition for almost a year, was correct. It allowed the Coalition to win a section of the union movement, the Greens and other non-aligned movement activists to play a big role in making this protest a success. This is also in a context in which the Sydney anti-war movement coalition, Walk Against War, had been split by the ALP after the Iraq invasion.

Mass action approach

The feeling on the streets on September 8 was electric and defiant - but apparently not enough for Solidarity and a section of the anarchists whose long faces stood out from the crowd.

They argued that their motion was different because it conveyed "the politics of defiance"! They seemed to completely miss the fact that people who came to the rally were very consciously being defiant.

Solidarity's argument is the argument of those who wish to separate themselves out - the so-called "militant minority" - from other working people.

They believe, wrongly, that they have to show everyone else how to think and behave politically, and that this is "leadership". In fact, the real leadership was shown by those who took up the challenges of organising a protest in difficult circumstances, who did the work instead of only turning up to meetings to criticise and point score, and who were prepared to discuss with people who did not always share their opinions the often tricky tactical decisions. Real leadership was shown by those who knew the movement would gain confidence from having pulled off a huge rally.

Trying to scandalise the DSP, now, for the success of the protests back fires badly on Solidarity (and the ISO).

The success of the Stop Bush protest was that it managed, under very difficult circumstances, to bring out a slice of that pre-war rally in February 2003.

The strategy followed by the DSP/Resistance and Socialist Alliance was one of mass action: that is, to build a broad united front around concrete demands. It is a general strategy, there is no rule book to follow, and certain political realities dictate certain choices.

This is a vastly more effective strategy than trying to separate out a "militant" minority from the rest of us.

The mass action approach derives from our understanding of how change comes about, through the self consciousness and self-organisation of the working class. Our tactics should be geared to drawing in the mass of workers into active struggle and not tactics that drive those workers out of struggle and help the ruling class strengthen its ideological influence in the working class.

.

House raids without warrants in NT

This is the text of a letter from Jennifer Martiniello that has gone to the 7.30 report and several newspapers. Please circulate to your networks.

Jennifer Martiniello is a writer and academic of Arrernte, Chinese and Anglo descent. She is a former Deputy Chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Arts Board of the Australia Council for the Arts, and a current member of the Advisory Board of the Australian Centre for Indigenous History at the ANU

Dear Kerry O'Brien and 7.30 researchers,

I have just returned from the Northern Territory. I want John Howard to explain why house to house raids without warrants are being conducted by the AFP in all the Alice Springs town camps.

I also want to know why at least two of the senior women who toured major cities speaking out against a uranium waste dump on their traditional lands have been raided by the AFP on warrants issued by a Federal Magistrate in Canberra, their furniture slashed with knives, belongings damages, laptops and mobile phones seized, and phones tapped. I was told by one of the women that the warrant gave 12 hours access to her home, and that she was told that the measures were justified because of the security crackdown for APEC ministers. One of those women is an elderly grandmother.

I have also been told by town camp residents that the AFP has set up surveillance on all households in the town camps, and have photographed without consent, every Aboriginal child in those town camps. In the 1990s the AFP were successfully taken to court for exactly the same violations in Redfern.

Please report on this disgraceful conduct, and pursue a full explanation from the Howard Government.

regards,

Jennifer Martiniello
Member, Advisory Board
Australian Centre for Indigenous History,
Australian National University

Warning:
This email may contain creative spelling!

Jennifer Martiniello
e: kemarre@optusnet. com.au
m: 0423629470
w: http://www.kemarrearts.com.au

Socialist Canada; Police State Australia?

The Wombats, like most Antipodeans, have been known to make fun of our Maple-leaved cousins, but there have always been a few things that the Canadians have had over other parts of the english-speaking world (starting, notably, with the fact that some of them also speak French. Then there's the recognition of the indigenous population. And really good beer. And a healthier approach to foreign policy than their southern neighbours, on things stretching from overseas wars to Cuba. And so on. We don'tl ike ice-hockey, however.).

However, this week, we have discovered something else to take note of. A poll taken by The Globe and Mail, Canada's second largest newspaper, and largest circulation paper (with over 2 million per week) - and admittedly historically a left-liberal paper, although the past year or so indicates to the contrary - has 60% of respondents saying they believe that socialism is "still a viable political alternative for the major industrial nations".

Admittedly the numbers aren't huge (8057 vs 5400), but it makes a welcome break from Australia this week.

On Monday, the SMH reported that NSW police "intelligence" have tried to recruit, Daniel Jones, one of those charged over the G20 demonstrations in Melbourne to inform of his fellow protesters.

"I asked him straight out what agency he was from," Mr Jones, a socialist, said yesterday. "He said he was from intelligence and I said what's intelligence? He said NSW Police."

The article reports that when the spook was called and asked "about Mr Jones's allegations, he replied, after a pause: "You are not really supposed to be talking to me about this.""

The timeliness of this cannot be under-emphasised. Legislation is before the NSW Parliament this week to give police extra powers for the period of the APEC conference in Sydney this September, when protests are planned, in particular against US President George Bush. These wonderful powers, under the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007 (NSW) include:

* “restricted” and “declared” areas in large parts of central Sydney;
* allowing the police to stop and search anyone in or around these areas and confiscate items considered “prohibited”, including 'banner-poles' of a metre in length;
* six-month jail terms for entering a restricted area without "justification"
* two years’ jail for carrying a “prohibited item” (as defined by the police, including the potential for them to declare anything as such);
* a presumption against bail (meaning people arrested could be detained for up to the two weeks of APEC).
* severely limiting police liability, (which raises the possibility that police will be allowed to break the law with impunity (especially important since the payouts to victims of police violence at the S11 protests in Melbourne in 2000 have finally been decided)
* allowing the police to create secret lists of “excluded people”, including those who fail to comply with a police order during APEC, and those who the police consider to pose a “threat” to people or property during APEC. These people will be prevented from entering parts of Sydney during APEC, and may even be picked up even before the protest or conference, and held for the duration, without charge.

The unsettling response to the criticism came from NSW police came today from a spokesman for the Police Minister, David Campbell - that those on the list "won't need to be informed - they know who they are". Furthermore, the May 18 Sydney Daily Telegraph reported that Federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock “dodged questions about whether the military will have shoot-to-kill powers during the Sydney APEC meeting."

Naturally, activists are not taking this lying down, and we will be taking to the streets regardless.

Meanwhile, in sunny Queensland, the trial of Constable Hurley for the killing in custody of Palm Island man Mulrunji Doomadgee continues.

The Socialist Alliance has a good collection of the current media coverage, as well as a chronology and history of the case. They are also selling (like hotcakes, apparently) yellow Justice for Mulrunji wristbands, as a response to the Qld police wearing blue wristbands ("the thin blue line") in support of Hurley, even (especially?) into aboriginal communities.

The latest claim from Hurley's defence (after he changed his story to match the evidence given in court, and admitted that he fell on Mulrunji, not next to him) is that it is a political campaign and poor Chris Hurley (who is ever so sorry about having not killed Mulrunji) is that the entire case is politically motivated (although when several hundred aboriginal people have died in custody in the past couple of decades, and Hurley is the first policeman even to be charged, the concept isn't so far fetched. In fact, it's high time the political establishment got motivated to do something about it. And more importantly, it's time the rest of us did.)

The trial concluded today, and the jury will likely retire tomorrow to prepare a verdict. Regardless of the outcome (likely a slap on the wrist) there is a going to be a political fallout to deal with.