Beware the terrorist redback

JOAN COXSEDGE is Chair and a founding member of the Committee for the 
Abolition of Political Police (CAPP), President of the Australia-Cuba 
Friendship Society and served as a Member of the Victorian Legislative 
Council for West Melbourne from 1979-1992. She is well known for her role 
in the anti-Vietnam War movement and other struggles, as well as being an 
artist and writer. The following article Joan takes up the question of the 
phony "war on terror" and the bill before parliament to give ASIO greater 
powers.

Last week, we commemorated Anzac Day, with ceremonies taking place across 
the land, even in other parts of the world. And we heard the usual clich 
nonsense about war, the most vocal being those whose experiences of war 
have come via Hollywood and the Tele. WW1 was probably the bloodiest 
conflict in an exceptionally bloody century.

Frontline soldiers lucky enough to survive came home with a hatred of war. 
Most didn't want to march, join RSL clubs or even talk about it, which was 
why April 25 was such a low-key affair when I was a kid. The old diggers 
would be turning in their grave when they hear that idiotic phrase "we came 
of age at Gallipoli", because they didn't have a chance, but walked into a 
death trap.

During the late '60s, '70s and even into the 1980s, the RSL took such a 
strident pro-war stance at a time when Australia was split down the middle, 
that support for marches and memorial services plummeted.

But over the last decade, we've seen a peculiar revival, especially by 
young people, perhaps looking to the past to establish their identity, not 
the past as it was, but one that is being shamelessly exploited in a mix of 
skewed nationalism and political opportunism.

I was angry to hear the old ANZACS being linked to George Bush's phony "war 
on terror" and read that members of the South Vietnamese Army — 
representing one of the most brutal corrupt regimes in modern times — want 
to take part in the ANZAC Day march.

What next? A brigade of the SS?

At the tail end of the last day's sitting, without any debate, the Senate 
was handed a package of bills, constituting some of the worst legislation 
ever to come before an Australian parliament.

The first part, the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill was 
given to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Review Committee for scrutiny 
and the general public was given less than two weeks to respond, with 
Easter intervening.

The second part, to boost ASIO's powers, was handed to the Parliamentary 
Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, which gave us a whole extra week to 
put in a submission.

Despite the lack of time and shameful media blackout, each committee 
received between 200 and 300 submissions from around Australia.

Extract's from Joan's submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on 
ASIO, ASIS and DSD on the ASIO bill:

Taken in conjunction with the parcel of anti-terrorist bills currently 
before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, I believe it 
constitutes the most dangerous legislation ever to come before an 
Australian parliament.

When added to the raft of powers given to ASIO and other security agencies 
over the past few decades, it feels as if this nation is being pushed 
towards becoming a fully-fledged police state. Because once these proposals 
become law they will sit on the statute books waiting to be used as a 
weapon of social control.

Attorney-General Williams has used September 11 to justify this 
legislation, regardless of its relevance to our own situation and the fact 
that we already have strong laws in place to deal with violent acts against 
the state.

So why do we need "significant new powers to deal with significant new 
threats"? He should tell us what they are.

ASIO only has to utter the magic word "terrorist" and it will be open 
slather, especially if this bill is passed.

We are not in a global war between democracy and terror as we are being 
asked to believe. The US is not going to look at historical wrongs and 
injustices and the reasons why it has become so hated around the world. 
Instead, it is seeking vengeance by way of its monstrous arsenal of 
weapons, which will create even more terror, filtering out what they don't 
want us to know.

The "war on terror" is quickly evolving into a worldwide war against all 
forms of progressive political action.

Yet here we are, obediently trotting behind the robotic US President and 
his ultra-riqht administration who walk all over us when it suits them, 
especially when it comes to matters of trade.

The Attorney-General's definition of terrorism is a lethal catch-all 
attacking our most basic freedoms, the freedom of speech and freedom of 
association, which once lost will be almost impossible to regain.

The language used throughout the bill is so vague it could encompass any 
activity and be used against trade unionists engaged in legitimate 
industrial struggle, or political activists protesting about the 
environment, genetically modified food or the excesses of the IMF and WTO, 
which protests doubtless will be dubbed "terrorist" and met with the full 
force of the new law.

Defining a terrorist depends on your point of view and how successful he or 
she is. Many an ex-terrorist won their war and went on to become the head 
of state. Two spring to mind from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Nelson Mandela who spent 26 years in jail and shouldn't have, and Ariel 
Sharon who didn't and should have.

Sharon reckons he is fighting terrorism by invading Palestinian refugee 
camps with US helicopter gunships and F-16s smashing the people and their 
infrastructure, fuelling even more hatred and despair and creating more 
terrorists. But then he has been there before in Sabra and Shatila and got 
away with it.

I first became acquainted with our security establishment more than 30 
years ago during the Vietnam War, when snoopers from various government 
agencies — who seemed to hate each other more than they hated us — sat at 
the back of draughty meeting halls taking notes and photographing our 
demonstrations, telling police who to arrest and who to rough up.

A few of us got fed up with the levels of surveillance and decided to fight 
back.

At the beginning of March 1973, we established the Committee for the 
Abolition of Political Police and soon learned we had a lot more to worry 
about than that.

We learned that ASIO screened migrants, vetted Public Service applications, 
infiltrated student, Union, environmental and migrant groups — with its 
records opened up to the US Intelligence Network — and used State Police 
Special Branches to do their legwork.

We learned about the alphabet of other secret agencies, an amazing number 
for a rather conservative country, and the existence of secret treaties 
that defined our foreign policy.

We took risks and were outrageous, but at least we were able to generate 
debate, the life-blood of any healthy society, so sadly lacking today. To 
that end, we spoke to a wide range of people, including large sections of 
the labour movement, and shared articles, booklets and a book, Rooted in 
Secrecy. [If you can pick up a copy it is well worth a read — Ed.]

For 15 years, the Victorian ALP had the abolition of ASIO and Special 
Branch as its policy.

Back then, the official excuse given for the attacks on our civil rights 
was linked to a fear of communism, a throwback to the Cold War of the 
1950s, a hellish period that saw good people lose their jobs for the 
heinous crime of opposing war at a time when it looked as if we would all 
be blown to kingdom come via a nuclear bomb.

Even back then, we predicted that terrorism would replace communism as the 
major bogey-man, devoting a chapter to it...

And we were right. It did. The two threats were seamlessly blended as 
terrorism took over from communism.

Over the years, as one ASIO Director-General followed the other, critics of 
its anti-democratic behaviour were told not to worry, the organisation was 
now "under control".

Nothing changed, except it got worse, as ASIO continued amassing dangerous 
new powers.

And now you want to give this blinkered, biased outfit a raft of Gestapo-
style powers?

In July 1984, as an ALP National Conference Delegate, I moved the following 
rather cheeky resolution on behalf of the Victorian Branch, and find it 
rather ironic that what I said 16 years ago is just as relevant today. It 
shows that the "need" to protect us from terrorism has been around for a 
lot longer than September 11.

I moved: "That ASIO should be disbanded forthwith...

A few extracts:

Someone is bound to bring up the terrorist argument, even though we have 
more deaths from people being bitten on the bum from the redback spider 
when they go to the dunny, than from terrorists...

But you get the feeling that there are some in Australia who are actually 
hoping for acts of terrorism to happen here to justify taking away even 
more of our hard-won rights.


Their job is countering activities aimed at social change.

ASIO's job is not even carried out on behalf of the Australian 
establishment, but quite openly on behalf of a foreign power.

Speaking of terrorism, ASIO was up to its neck in framing three young men 
for the Hilton outrage, who were sentenced to 16 years jail and, to our 
shame, were only pardoned and released last year, after serving seven years 
of their sentence.

Going back even further, ASIO snoops were also up to their necks in 
screening out leftist Southern Europeans in favour of Nazi war criminals 
and supporting their political violence when they got here.

If progressives slipped through their net, they did everything possible to 
stop them being naturalised...

The reason why secret agencies are running riot at this time, particularly 
in capitalist countries, is that the capitalist system is in crisis and the 
power brokers feel in need of protection.

I have been accused of not being a political realist by those who say we 
need secret agencies because other countries have them. Conversely, those 
who most frequently put this argument rarefy suggest that we should have 
free health care, cheap housing, and public transport and a comprehensive 
policy for social security, which some other countries have.

Naturally, my motion was defeated, but still received strong support from 
delegates from every State.

If passed, this bill, along with the others in the Attorney-General's anti-
terrorist package, signals a new wave of McCarthyism using guilt by 
association, character assassination, the big lie and the rejection of 
Australia's long held tradition of a fair go and a far trial for all 
citizens. In the eyes of our security/thought police we are all terrorists 
now.

It should be rejected out of hand.