On Monday February 18, 23 people facing charges stemming from the G20 protest in November 2006 will be having the first day of their Commital hearing at Melbourne Magistrate Court. The Ongoing G20 Arrestee Solidarity Network has called a rally in support of the Arestees. It is vital that we support other activists as they face state repression. In the spirit of solidarity we invite all who are interested to come and support the arrestees, and continue the struggle for a better world. See you all there!

Where: Melbourne Magistrates Court (cnr of William and Lonsdale st)

When: Monday 18 February, 9:30 am

Media Statement 16 January 2008

Federation disappointed that baton charge on peaceful protesters found to be justified

The Federation of Community Legal Centres co-ordinated a Human Rights Observer (HRO) team of 28 trained observers to monitor the police response to protests at the G20 Summit 17-19 November 2006.

The HROs recorded observations of incidents during the protest and took statements from protesters and others in connection with the police response. On 7 December 2006, 3 protester complaints and a statement by an HRO were provided to the Office of Police Integrity (OPI) for investigation in connection with an incident at the Melbourne Museum.

The HRO witness statement reads: “A small group of protesters (between 30 and 40 people) were singing and chanting while standing in the sliding doors of the Melbourne Museum. They were holding the doors open and some protesters were keeping time with the chant by drumming on the glass with their open hands. There were three police standing to the left of the protesters watching. Protesters were also drumming on drums, playing guitars and trumpets and many were dancing. From behind the protesters (from a blind spot) about 15 police ran into the area without warning (there were no warnings given at all. I was standing back from the protesters observing and the first I knew about a police presence was when they ran past me). When the police came in contact with the protesters they started physically hitting protesters and moving them away from the doors. The protesters were caught in a bottleneck…The police hit out at many of the protesters, scattering them, and numerous protesters found themselves having to defend themselves against police hitting them with batons.”

On 14 January 2008, the Federation was advised by the OPI that the complaints over the Museum incident had been investigated by the Police’s internal investigation unit and were found to be unsubstantiated.

The OPI’s report appears to accept that:
- the protesters were protesting peacefully;
- no warning was given prior to a running baton charge by the police;
- police used batons on protesters;
- a pram was knocked sideways during the charge and a woman was injured and taken to hospital.

Despite this, the OPI found that the use of force by police was justified because police “suspected a breach of the peace may occur”.

The Federation is disappointed in the outcome of the investigation. The OPI’s finding appears to accept that a baton charge without warning on peaceful protesters is justified. The Federation strongly believes that police should have first requested protesters to move from the Museum entrance and warned them that force would be used if they did not comply. Adequate warnings and proper communication with protesters will reduce the risk of injury to protesters, police and bystanders in future protests.

Further, the OPI’s finding ignores video footage of the incident which appears to show police running at the protesters using batons in an overhead striking motion. It ignores apparent breaches of Victoria Police’s Crowd Control Guidelines.

The Federation believes that it was inappropriate for this investigation to have been conducted by the Police’s own internal investigation unit. Police should not be investigating allegations of misconduct against other police.

The OPI has stated that an investigation into a separate incident involving the arrest by plain clothes officers of a man who was not participating in the protests has not been finalised.

POLICE have been cleared after an investigation into violence at the G20 riots in Melbourne 14 months ago.

The police ethical standards department wrote to the officers this week, telling them they would face no action over allegations laid by protesters at the forum of economic leaders that they used excessive violence.

The accusations stem back to November 2006, when police clashed with some anti-G20 protesters outside the Melbourne Museum.

The main allegations were believed to be that police used dangerous overhead baton strikes and did not issue warnings before force was used.

Witnesses were still being interviewed and security footage being examined as late as last month as part of the marathon probe.

The Herald Sun revealed in January last year that the officers — a sergeant, a senior constable and four constables — were under investigation.

Trouble flared when protesters turned up at the museum for what was meant to be a top-secret visit by two G20 delegates.

The Federation of Community Legal Centres lodged complaints with the Office of Police Integrity over the police actions.

The OPI then asked the Victoria Police ethical standards department to investigate the claims.

A Victoria Police spokeswoman said the members were never under formal investigation and were only assisting as witnesses.

Police Association assistant secretary Bruce McKenzie said he was pleased the police officers, who had been thanked by federal authorities for acting professionally, were finally cleared.

"However, it is very disappointing that our members should have this matter hanging over them for over 14 months," he said. "A delay of this magnitude smacks of a resourcing problem at ESD that should be remedied as a matter of urgency."

Insp McKenzie said the association was also concerned that, despite getting the all-clear from both ESD and the OPI, any further review had not been ruled out.

"This makes it difficult for them to move on and put this whole episode behind them," he said.

COLLECTIVE SWEAT (the kids who gave you Camp Betty and Sweaty Betty) bring you another sweaty party - Blood Sweat New Years - to make you cream your pants and dance all night…

main room: ARTIFICIAL VS MS DJ TOUPEE::RED LIGHT DISCO :: DJ KITI :: PLUS MORE

upstairs: A DEN OF TRASHCORE, with pop, 80s, booty and hip hop. Featuring: DJ Deadbeat (Sydney), Electricity Bill, IN-FIdel’ity + more

front room: LADY LIMONATA’S CASUAL LOUNGETTE (Dress: terry towelling, hawaiian mishap, coral sunset. Playsuits welcome)

and of course, slutty wrongness on the platform from JAIGUR PLUSHBOX, LADY CAVITY… and MORE!!

Collective Sweat is all about making space for beautiful freaks and foxy queers to kick up their heels and get sweaty together. We’ve kept our door charge as low as we can while still covering costs. Any accidental profits we make will be donated to support radical
political causes. People who dress up will be rewarded with sweaty love and the admiration of their peers. Dress the fuck up!

$15 / 12 concession. Buy your tickets from Hares and Hyenas at 63 Johnston St, Fitzroy; Brunswick Bound at 361 Sydney Rd, Brunswick or via paypal from www.collectivesweat.com (there will be a small booking fee at each outlet). Pick them up early so you don’t miss out and so we can buy you a dance floor…

Solidarity price for G20 arrestees, $10, email collectivesweat@gmail.com.

ACCESSIBILITY INFO: Unfortunately, Crystal’s toilets and the upstairs room are not wheelchair accessible. A small section of the main area is raised by two steps. We are organising a wheelchair accessible ramp for the front entrance. Please contact us with queries:
collectivesweat@gmail.com

queer/trans/freak friendly!

POLICE ATTACKED PEACEFUL CROWD!!!! On September 8th 2007 about 10,000 people joined a vibrant, festive crowd protesting against APEC summit. Police created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. After the rally was well and truly over Police attacked a quiet group of people. They arrested 2 people and then released them saying…’they had made a mistake’. In arresting these two people many others got arrested including my sister. My sister was part of the independent media on the day. Her charges range from ‘Assault’ and ‘Resisting Arrest’. She along with other were denied bail and had to spend a horrific night in jail. We demand that all charges be dropped. The hysteria of security leading up to APEC was just a way to intimidate people out of voicing their right to protest. These ridiculous measure might be used in other protest so we need to unite and speak out against violent and intimidating police tactics. JOIN SOLIDARITY PROTEST TO DEFEND THE RIGHT TO PROTEST THIS THURSDAY 20TH OF DECEMBER 12PM OUTSIDE MELBOURNE MAGISTRATES COURT (CNR WILLIAM & LONSDALE) PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD AND BRING BANNERS, MEGAPHONES ETC

Photos of rally at http://melbourneprotests.wordpress.com/ 

Solidarity Rally: 10am, Friday 31 August 2007

Defend Political Protest - Drop the Charges!

Venue: Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, 233 William St, Melbourne

Ongoing G20 Solidarity Network meets fortnightly at 6pm on Fridays @ New International Bookstore Trades Hall cnr Victoria pde and Lygon St Carlton

(next meetings: Aug 24; Sept 14 - not 7)

A Space Outside was a gathering of educational and creative workshops and direct action training that took place in the lead up to the G20 summit mobilisation in Melbourne from 17th * 19th November, 2006. Over the course of five days, approximately 400 people came through the space before it was busted by seventy police on Friday 17th November, the eve of the main protest.

The tactics used by police were intended to demobilise all forms of protest, not just criminal acts. The legitimacy of the legal means by which police exercised their powers was in many instances questionable, and yet the tone of civility and the lack of S11-style police violence revealed their desire to be seen as “doing the right thing”. This was a kind of passive aggression. Powers were exercised in ways that were excessive. They presented no evidence that they were acting on the authority of the owner, possession was taken by force, banners were confiscated under the justification that they would be used to commit a crime and were suspected to be stolen property, and photos and video footage were taken and later used against people in the mainstream daily press for the Crime Stoppers “Persons of Interest “campaign.

Lack of proof of authority from the owner
The proprietary status of adverse possession (squatting) stipulates that an occupant (squatter) has greater proprietary rights over everyone in the world, except the owner. Squatting is not a criminal offence, in fact adverse possession includes this proprietary right to possession. The only way police can legally evict someone is with the consent of the owner. This right of possession means that the onus is on the police to demonstrate that they are acting as an agent of the owner. But police often do not respect this and it’s kind of hard to demand when seventy police are sledging down the doors.

When the police came to evict the ASO squat, they were asked if they had been in touch with the owner, to which they replied “yes”. They could not name the owner and failed to produce any evidence that they were acting on behalf of the owner regarding the re-possession of the space.  

Entry and re-possession by force
Within minutes of approximately seventy police arriving at the scene, they ignored our attempts to negotiate outside and smashed their way through the doors. All police then immediately began the eviction and insisted that we gather everything in the space and prepare for a swift departure. Police displayed intimidating behaviour such as forcing individual people to search distant rooms under the supervision of police, but without a buddy. They made remarks such as “we love this” as people were ushered to the front of the building.

Included in the proprietary right of adverse possession is the requirement that possession not be taken by force. If anyone had been charged with trespass, criminal damage or any other squatting related offence, the defence could have been tested in court that this was adverse possession, and that police had gained possession through he use of force, in contravention of the squatters’ right of possession, a right that is superior to anyone else’s right except the owner.

Confiscating banners
Police confiscated a number of banners using two justifications. Firstly they believed the banners were stolen property. When someone stated they were the owner of one banner, this banner was returned. But some banners, painted on the back of advertising slogans, were not given back, even when people stated they were the owners and they were willing to risk being charged with theft. Police had no proof that the banners were not simply given to these ‘owners’. Secondly, in relation to the Stop G20 banner, police stated they had reason to believe that public order offences would be committed. They gave no indication that they had evidence of any planned criminal activity. So it can only be concluded that the public order offences police referred to include protest itself. Since when has marching in the street with a banner been a criminal offence?

Videotaping and gathering information that would later be used to arrest and charge people.
Over a dozen police took photographs and videotaped the entire bust. Photographs from this bust were then used by police in the Crime Stoppers list of 28 people wanted for G20 related activity that was published in the newspapers. Video footage has also been used in arrestees’ brief of evidence, presumably as a way of supporting identities.

After the bad press of S11, when 200 complaints about police violence were made to the Victorian Ombuds, resulting in a $700,000 pay out, it was clear that the State intended to avoid a similarly vulnerable public image. Their response was in many ways more sinister than beating the crap out of people, like they did at S11.

As social movement organisers, we need to acknowledge and learn from the police tactics that were employed at this mobilisation. The excessive use of police video cameras needs to be taken into consideration. The fact that so many police were used to intimidate protestors using such dodgy tactics, like confiscating banners, goes to show the extent to which the Victorian police struggled to maintain the legitimacy of the G20 event, in light of our resistance. The fact that they had to confiscate our banners (what??) shows that they are vulnerable to any kind of dissent. The state’s response has been exaggerated. This intimidation has been a political tactic.

In the brief of evidence for G20 arrestees, Christine Nixon says she expected that after some arrests, other protestors would go away and hide. In the media, however, she said she never wants to see a meeting like G20 in Melbourne again. In that sense, the mobilisation was a success. Similarly, we never see WTO, IMF or World Bank meetings anymore! What, are they scared? Perhaps they are threatened because they know they are standing on shaky ideological ground.

The impacts of police intimidation and repression should not be underestimated, and no one deserves to have their direct experience of repression trivialised or abstracted. But the fact that so many police resources was poured into the campaign just goes to prove the Tranny Cops slogan, “YOU’RE WEAK!!”

Around 9 pm, while we were all chilling in the loungeroom of the wake, a squatted social centre in coburg, spot*, the resident dog, started barking crazily, and not long after there were loud banging noises coming from the back gate. The 5 of us that were home went to the back door to see what was going on, and saw torchs being shone at the gate and us, and heard someone say something along the lines of ‘this is the police, get control of that dog’.

While one person went to grab ’spot’ and bring him inside away from the police, the rest of us were waiting by the door. When it became clear that ’spot’ was not being co-operative (an example to us all!), we shut the door to try and stop the police from entering, as they had cut the pad lock off the back gate and were heading to the door. While this was happening we were asking the police why they had come, what right they had to be on the property, and other such questions. The police refused to discuss things with us until they had control of the property, so they sent for a
sledgehammer.

While we all stood holding the back door, a cop smashed the back door open with a massive sledgehammer, sending a piece of glass into one person’s eye (who was luckily uninjured), after which what seemd like 50 police stormed in.

The police were mostly uniformed, with a few undercovers (from taskforce salver) filming and taking photos. The police’s leader refused to say anything about why they were evicting us, or enter into discussion, until the ‘office in charge’ arrived roughly 10 minutes later. During this time we were made to sit in the loungeroom, surrounded by police, while more police went through the space, and our stuff.

Once the officer in charge came, it was claimed that we were being evicted on behalf of the owners (and on the owners request), though the police could not name the owners, or provide information about the owners. There was just the threat that if we made them get the owner we would all be charged with tresspass and whatever else they could slap on us, and we would not be allowed to take our things (and as this was a social centre, there were a lot of things).

It was also made clear that we were being evicted as part of the police campaign against g20 protests (and protestors), with the police telling us we were the third squat to be evicted in their campaign against g20 protests.

A group decision was made to leave the space, as with the sheer number of police that were already in the space there was no hope of holding onto the space, so there was little point delaying the eviction by demanding the owner be brought. The process of moving things out of the Wake continued until 4am, the Saturday morning of the g20 protest.

*name changed to protect his identity…

Those on APEC black list ‘know who they are’ from SMH

 Edmund Tadros June 19, 2007

INDIVIDUALS do not need to be told they are on a list of "excludable persons" from this year’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in Sydney - they should just know, says the office of the NSW Police Minister. The extraordinary response came as a collection of left-leaning groups criticised the proposed laws around APEC as draconian and an unreasonable curb on the right to protest. The APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007, which will be debated in the lower house this week, would allow the Police Commissioner to create a secret list of people who are excluded from APEC security areas. Asked how an individual would know if they were on the list, a spokesman for the Police Minister, David Campbell, said: "Those who have been involved in violent and disruptive protests in the past will most likely be on this list. They won’t need to be informed - they know who they are," he said. The Greens upper house member Sylvia Hale said: "The worst aspect of the APEC bill is this notion that police will compile a list of people and possibly organisations, which without any fundamental justification can be listed as excludable persons," she said. "It’s frighteningly reminiscent of what happened in communist East Germany." The Greens, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties and student activists from the main APEC protest group, the Stop Bush Coalition, are united against the APEC laws. They have also criticised police over allegations detailed in yesterday’s Herald that an officer tried to blackmail an activist into spying on his fellow protesters. Daniel Jones, 20, said he was asked to to spy on his fellow activists with the expectation police would "help out" with charges he was facing over his protests at last year’s G20 in Melbourne. The NSW Council of Civil Liberties said it was not surprised police were attempting to recruit informers. "There is a long, long history in NSW of police harassing legitimate protesters," the secretary of the council, Stephen Blanks, said. A spokesman for the Stop Bush Coalition, Alex Banbridge, said he had heard of stories from other activists who felt they had been directly intimidated by authorities to stay away from any APEC protests. Mr Campbell’s spokesman said "police use any number of methods to gather intelligence about individuals and organisations".

taken from smh

AS DANIEL JONES walked through Circular Quay and towards the ferry terminal 12 nights ago, someone called his name. Mr Jones, an outspoken 20-year-old student activist, turned to face a man he had never met. Smiling and wearing a blue bomber jacket, the man introduced himself simply as Ahmed.

Ahmed, with a beard and receding dark hair, said he was from intelligence at NSW Police and had an offer to make. He wanted the student to spy on his fellow activists before the APEC meeting in September. In return Ahmed implied he could help "make arrangements" about charges Mr Jones faces over his part in last year’s G20 protests in Melbourne.

The approach is the latest example of action taken by the authorities to monitor and minimise protest activity during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum meeting. The move has outraged activists, and comes after reports of increased police presence on campuses and allegations that ASIO is spying on student activists.

Mr Jones, an arts/science student at Sydney University, is one of five protesters from Sydney arrested and charged in March over the G20 protests.

Before meeting Ahmed, Mr Jones said he had been among about 30 protesters outside a hotel where the Prime Minister was speaking. He was walking to the ferry on his way home to Balmain East about 8.30pm when Ahmed approached.

"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."

Ahmed then suggested they sit on a bench and talk. Mr Jones was dubious, but agreed.

"He had a killer manner about him and he knew a lot of stuff about different student groups. He was saying that police needed some help in the lead-up to APEC and of course they could help me. He said, ‘have you got charges against you? We can help with that’."

Mr Jones took this to mean that if he became an informant his G20 charges would be reduced or dropped.

At some point during the 20-minute meeting Ahmed showed his identification and a business card, but would not let Mr Jones keep the card.

Ahmed told Mr Jones that police wanted to know about any plans for violent protests by activists. Mr Jones told him: "No one I know is planning violent protests."

As Ahmed attempted to recruit his agent, he even briefly discussed some trade craft.

"He talked about this process called ‘registration’ where every week or two we would secretly meet somewhere and talk, and often they would request specific pieces of information," Mr Jones said.

He avoided giving a direct response to the offer during the initial meeting and a follow-up call Ahmed made last Monday. "It’s absolutely ridiculous. We’re protesters. We’re not criminals; we’re a public movement."

The Herald called the mobile number supplied to Mr Jones. The man who answered confirmed his name was Ahmed and that he knew Mr Jones.

Asked about Mr Jones’s allegations, he replied, after a pause: "You are not really supposed to be talking to me about this."

He then ended the call.

A spokesman for NSW Police would not comment directly on Mr Jones’s allegations.

ASIO did not return the Herald’s calls yesterday.