Government Spin - a weapon of choice against diversity and equality

The ominous Criminal Organisations Control Bill(2011) could well have been penned by George Orwell as a bad joke on all those people who haven't read his books. The Bill is evidence the far, right-wing conservative state government are so far removed from normal working-class Australian society, that they cannot be bothered considering the risks that the impending radical law poses to battlers and the middle classes.

With their net thrown wide, the 160-page bill completely fails to mention the purported target recipients for the "Bikie Bill" at all - yes, that's right, the Government has drawn up a "Bikie Bill" with no bikies in it - incompetence, or smoke 'n' mirrors? Surprisingly Hylton Quail who does not support such laws, told The West Australian's readers that bikies aren't his favourite mob. Considered cloistered and secretive, bikies opt for a somewhat gruff, male-dominated, fundamentalist culture that is, at its most essential, inaccessible to the mainstream majority. Along with their guarded aloofness and their private cultural practices, comes the usual misunderstanding and intolerance from society. In practice, and before the law, they should be viewed as any other marginalized minority, albeit with practices and customs not easily understood by broader society, but still, nonetheless, entitled to the same rights and presumption of innocence. One could easily speculate that the "bikies" in the "Bikie Bill" spin are interchangeable with any racial or religious minority, and there is nothing in the Bill that offers any comfort that it will not be applied in an arbitrary manner to all other similarly unspecified groups who have a dissenting opinion or who are unpopular with the government of the day.

In justification of the Bill on Wednesday May 2, the Parliamentary Secretary Michael Mischin, drew a parallel to the laws implemented to rid the world of Nazis after they had murdered 6 million people in the Holocaust. He also suggested the United Nations makes provisions for anti-association type laws in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though the UN has already suggested that the anti-association laws in Australia, rejected by the High Court twice, were extreme and naive.

"In terms of civil liberties and reference to, for example, the United Nations Convention ... after the Second World War the United Nations declared the Nazi Party a criminal organisation, and members of every organ in it-the Schutzstaffel, or SS; the Gestapo; and even those who worked as functionaries in the Nazi Party, whether or not they happened to have killed anyone or committed any violence-as nevertheless being members of criminal organisation.

The United Nations, even in its International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, makes it quite plain that although there is a freedom of association, it is subject to certain limitations, and one of those limitations is that it not be for causes that are fundamentally inconsistent with a free and democratic society, or damaging to public order, morality and the like.

.... I think the Soviet Union had a terrific bill of rights in its constitution. I am sure a number of other countries do also. I suppose North Korea also has one."

So, to be clear, the legislative response to the Holocaust installed and ensured democracy and human rights, where there had been none amid the tyranny of a brutal dictatorship, whereas the insignificant and poorly drafted Criminal Organisations Control Bill(2011) is, at best, an undemocratic, unsound philosophy that hinges on the presumption by one of two parties (that are less than independent), that a group of 3 people could criminally offend at any given point in the future, because two of them have had convictions for something.

The High Court of Australia ruled against similar anti-association legislation which previously passed through NSW and SA state Parliaments. The two parties who can apply to have an organisation declared are the Police Commissioner and the Corruption and Crime Commissioner. At present the Police Commissioner is the subject of two investigations by the CCC and his son, a convicted drug cook, has just been released from protective prison custody. A report from the Parliamentary Inspector of the CCC informed the very same Parliament which is set to pass this bill, that the so called, "independent watchdog," had investigated only 1 in 278 complaints against police in the last year.

There is no absence of criminal legislation with which to deal with offenders in Western Australia, and the parallel, apart from being completely unrelated to the bill, seems puzzlingly, racially insensitive for a Parliamentarian in a democratic society. The Bill is not purported to, and does not, target perpetrators of race crimes, or white supremacist groups in the state - they are still covered by the criminal law that apparently is not effective enough for "bikies." In the words of another infamous Australian Parliamentarian, "please explain..."

Even more concerning is that the bill has met with bipartisan support.

To date, anti-association restrictions enacted via other legal avenues, such as bail conditions, CHOGM laws and cashed-up multinational mining company and industry threat lists, have almost exclusively been served on people exercising an Australian constitutional right to protest(not on-site). Banned, beleaguered human rights/tree hugger/native title protesters outweigh the Government's alleged Public Enemy No.1 "bikies," at ratio of about 36:1. So, it is not difficult to see the writing on the wall about why "bikies" don't actually happen to be mentioned in the government's upcoming "Bikie Bill."

Criminal organisations don't rate a mention in the Criminal Organisation Control Bill. Neither do the definitions of what police might consider a serious criminal offence, on any given day. What comprises an organisation is similarly slippery, so you might want to think twice about your next family barbeque, bowling club meeting, prayer meetings or hanging out with your mates outside Maccas, especially if you are representative of an ethnic minority that is already disproportionately targeted and vilified by post-White-Australia-Policy oriented police and government departments.

The draft legislation has not explained how children can be considered gangsters or organized crime figures worthy of an anti-association control order. Following the Police Commissioner's repeated spin editorials in the state's only daily newspaper about what he considers to be the criminal disposition of Aboriginal boys - who he mistakenly claims undertake 61% of the state's burglaries - it is not a far reach to envision that the juvenile provisions in the Bill may not be applied to juvenile "bikies," (which don't exist, because children can't be motorcycle club members) although, strangely, that is how the Bill is being marketed to the public and to the Opposition. Experts in juvenile criminal law state that the juvenile crime rate has remained static for the last decade, and is not worsening, contrary to Government spin.



After the terrible and tragic attacks in the US in 2001, reactionary government policies ensued, swelling defence and law enforcement budgets, and sadly, the hype that followed could only be described as racist and exploitative. Respected intelligence whistleblowers such as Andrew Wilkie were burnt at the inquiry stake for daring to state known facts instead of towing the line on Government spin, when the Federal government was in the midst of a feverish rush to instil yet more fear into the electorate. 

As most government department budgets face cuts, the government has spun another makeshift, bogeyman to frighten the voting public into submission and compliance - no independent thought required. The Bill and a raft of international agreements just signed, ease safeguards and obstructions to domestic and international enforcement intelligence sharing, and facilitate a multi-agency approach to controlling and surveilling declared groups(including outsourcing domestic intelligence gathering to largely unscrutinized, international private security corporations), all at a time when Australia's current Federal government is failing to protect the rights or the privacy of its citizens whether here or overseas, and while the state governments are hell-bent on annihilating people's rights.

In April, an Australian human rights lawyer, who works overseas and who has considerable status in her field both in Australia and overseas, was prevented from boarding a Virgin flight home, until she asked DFAT to explain the incident.
She recounted how Virgin staff had told her that she had been put on a "no fly list," for no apparent reason and that they had to stop her from flying home and notify Australian authorities.Virgin staff also allegedly told her that a US journalist copped similar treatment from the company. Incidents involving the intimidation of journalists by the government are worrying enough for countries with a constitutional right to a free press.Oscar-nominated doco maker Laura Poitras was also detained by authorities, who told her that she could not pick up a pen during her interrogation by armed security forces, because she was too intimidating when she was writing. Today, news appeared on the web about a similar incident involving Virgin, in which a family was escorted off a plane because their toddler was on a "no fly list." 

CCC Kevin Spratt Taser Inquiry concludes

The CCC this week finished its inquiry into the mistreatment of Kevin Spratt when he was arrested and detained in 2008, by Perth police and the Emergency Support Group(ESG). Playing it safe, the "corruption watchdog" only recommended charges be considered against the two police who had already been disciplined in internal proceedings, despite the life-threatening injuries Spratt had to be hospitalized for, after he was transferred to prison. Spratt was hospitalized following his transfer to prison, with at least one fractured rib and a collapsed lung and pneumothorax, a dislocated right shoulder, and a comminuted (multiple breaks) fracture of the humerus(upper arm). One ESG officer at the inquiry asserted Spratt had thrown himself around the back of the ESG prison transport van. The reasoning behind the recommendation for criminal charges seems to be, that the two Police officers tasered Kevin Spratt "at least 12 times" at the Perth Watch House on 31 August 2008, although, CCTV and taser data uncovered during the inquiry showed that Spratt was tasered up to 41 times in one week by various WAPS and DCS ESG officers. "As mentioned above, in total there were 14 deployments of Taser weapons on 31 August 2008 at the PWH by WAPOL officers. Nine of these deployments were video recorded...while five deployments were not recorded as they occurred in the padded cell. iv Senior Constable Tomlin was responsible for the first four deployments and Senior Constable Strahan was, according to Taser Data Port download records, responsible for 10 deployments (five during the period 12:09:57 p.m. and 12:10:48 p.m. and five after that period in the padded cell). However, this is disputed by Senior Constable Strahan who gave evidence during a public examination that his “recollection was” that it was only “three times” in the padded cell, that is, eight (and not 10) deployments overall. v Thirteen of the deployments were in the “Drive-Stun” Mode, which affects the Sensory Nervous System and causes pain to the subject, but does not achieve incapacitation in the same manner as “Probe” Mode. vi" (Report page xiii)   The CCC report said the Senior Constables' use of the tasers against Spratt, was "an undue and excessive use of force which was unreasonable and unjustified." The Acting Commissioner, Mark Herron, said any reasonable person viewing a video in which Police tasered Kevin Spratt nine times in a little over a minute "is left with a feeling of considerable disquiet, if not outrage." A footnote in the report said, "There is no recorded footage of Mr Kevin John Spratt in the padded cell at the Perth Watch House (PWH) on 31 August 2008, as, for privacy reasons, the cell is monitored in real time, via CCTV cameras. Prisoners detained in the padded cell at the PWH, often have their clothing removed for safety reasons. (Report page xiii, footnote iv)"   He said the report also criticised a Police Internal Affairs Unit investigation into the matter. “While the Commission found no misconduct, the internal investigation did not resolve inconsistencies between a Police summary of the facts around the incident, and other documentation and the video,” he said. 　 Inconsistencies in one officer's Statement of Material Facts(SMF) about incidents at the Perth Watch House, presented to the court that convicted Spratt in 2008, resulted in his exoneration last year on that conviction, for obstructing officers (the ones who tasered him). Constable Fowler told the Commissioner he was misinformed about the events that took place at the Watch House and wrote his SMF based on what his colleagues had said. Fowler was told by an IAU officer that the SMF was false, on 25 September 2008. "The relevant section of the SMF relating to the additional charge of Obstruct a Public Officer reads: Upon arrival at the Perth watch-house the accused was initially calm and cooperative with police and was walked into the main area without incident where he was given several drinks of water.… 'His handcuffs were removed from the seat and he was requested to accompany police for a strip-search. The accused began to resist by holding onto the seat and by bracing his arms. Police tried to move him from the seat when he began resisting against police. He again became violent and aggressive towards police who were attempting to restrain him by kicking and flailing his arms towards police as they approached him… The Taser was deployed to prevent any injury to the police or the accused however it initially had little effect with the accused continuing to violently resist against police trying to restrain him. The accused was taken to the padded cell where he continued his violent aggressive behaviour ...' 110" The CCC decided the provision of an inaccurate statement of material fact to the court by Fowler, which he disclosed fully at the hearings, did not constitute misconduct. The report states the SMF was false in regards to the circumstances under which taser use was initiated against Spratt at the Perth Watch House because the CCTV footage showed he was not acting aggressively - to the contrary. "The Commission notes that Mr Spratt did not plead guilty to the additional charge of Obstruct a Public Officer until 1 December 2008. Therefore, there had been ample time to amend the SMF prior to that time or to seek to withdraw the charge either before 1 December 2008 or 30 January 2009 (the date upon which the conviction of Mr Spratt on the charge was recorded). The Commission also notes that neither of the IAU investigators who interviewed 1/C Constable Fowler on 25 September 2008, nor the WA Police Union representative present during the interview, have any recollection of 1/C Constable Fowler’s comments about the inaccuracy of the SMF and the need to amend it. However, the Commission considers that this does not necessarily mean that the comments were not made by 1/C Constable Fowler."   The CCC said the investigation followed the 2010 release of their research report on the Police use of tasers, and included public hearings in 2010 and 2011 into the use of tasers on Kevin Spratt. However, the inquiry was ordered by the then commissioner, coincidentally, the day after the 2010 Rally for Humaneness, when WA Shadow Attorney General, John Quigley, exposed to bystanders the scar on Spratt's chest from him being intubated for a fractured rib/collapsed lung. Prior to that event, there had been little disclosure and some considerable sidestepping by the government departments, not least of which, resulted in a wrongful conviction. At that point, the CCC Commissioner, extraordinarily, ordered the immediate cessation of all internal investigations by both public sector agencies. One Police Internal Affairs officer later became a specific subject of  the inquiry for a half-hearted investigation of Fowler's inaccurate SMF, which drew one recommendation for WAPS reform. The report said Kevin Spratt was also tasered 11 times on 6 September 2008 by ESG(ESG) officers from the Department of Corrective Services (DCS) while being removed from a cell in the Perth Watch House. "Seven of those uses were reasonable and while no finding was made in regard to the other four due to insufficient evidence, the report expressed concern about them. Concern was also expressed about whether sufficient consideration was given to the use of negotiation and conflict resolution techniques," the CCC stated. “9] In total there were 11 deployments of Taser weapons on Mr Spratt at the PWH on 6 September 2008 during the cell extraction by ESG officers. Senior Officer B was responsible for four deployments and Senior Officer A for seven deployments. According to Taser Data Port download records, the 11 deployments occurred between 14:18:15 and 14:21:40. Two deployments were in “Probe Mode” (one by Senior Officer B at (report page xiii) 14:18:15 and one by Senior Officer A at 14:19:21) and nine deployments were in the “Drive-Stun” Mode (three by Senior Officer B and six by Senior Officer A, at times indicated in Table 2 above). In all, Taser weapons were deployed for a total of 53 seconds of shock over a period of 205 seconds, with a Taser weapon deployed on average every 18.36 seconds. Senior Officer B was responsible for four deployments during a 53-second period, with a total of 18 seconds of shock, and Officer A was responsible for seven deployments during a 139-second period with a total of 35 seconds of shock. There was a 13-second gap between the last deployment by Senior Officer B and the first deployment by Senior Officer A.(report page xiv)” The media release about the report said - "the report concluded that the release of a controversial “Timeline” of Mr Spratt’s contact with Police was not misconduct." However, the report said inaccuracies in the “Timeline” should have been corrected before it was released. The CCC accepted the evidence of Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan who suggested the "Timeline" was released to preserve public confidence in WAPS "as there was a lot of misinformation in the  public domain about the events surrounding Mr Spratt." However due to the incorrect information in the “Timeline” greater misinformation resulted from the police “Timeline.” Essentially, what the CCC said, was that the WAPS "Timeline" purporting to clarify the facts, actually didn't. The CCC also said the impact of the "Timeline" in making Spratt's offending look worse than it was, was not WAPS’ intent when they conceived it and  released it to the public. The false information in Constable Fowler's statement of facts, presented to the judge in 2008 (for which there was also no punitive action taken by the courts or the CCC against any officers who allegedly supplied incorrect information to Fowler), as well as Internal Affairs' alleged instruction to Fowler to "leave it," when he asked how to fix the discrepancies uncovered  in his SMF cast doubts over the intent behind the police public relations release. Intentionally or not, the release had an effect in the public's eyes and in the court's, and Mr O'Callaghan said that it was intended to restore public confidence in WAPS officers. The CCC concluded that though progress was made by WAPS and ESG in implementing urgent reforms, the completion of that process would take time, and so the body will be monitoring and reviewing conditions on an ongoing basis for an indefinite period. The CCC's recommendations were: Recommendation 1 WAPS review the Use of Force Reports process and establish procedures to ensure they comply with regulations in the Police Manual; and a record of submission is maintained by  the Officer-in-Charge, manager or supervisor. Officers-in-Charge, managers or supervisors should undertake cross-checks of the details contained in each Use of Force Report and the associated Taser Data Port download record, as part of the assessment of the Use of Force Report and the circumstances during which the Taser weapon was used. Recommendation 2 WAPS review IAU investigation processes and procedures to ensure relevant documentation, such as Major Incident Briefing Notes, Use of Force Reports and any other reports, Crime and Occurrence Books and Statements of Material Facts (where applicable), and any other relevant evidence, such as CCTV footage, are reviewed and cross-checked to ensure consistency - and where inconsistencies are determined, any matters related to the outcome of investigations be reviewed in light of the identified inconsistencies. This includes charges which are brought in the context of an IAU investigation, which should be monitored and reviewed to ensure that the facts upon which the charges are based are  accurate. Recommendation 3 WAPS review the process by which it is determined officers should be charged with disciplinary  offences and/or criminal offences to ensure that: * all relevant material is taken into account during the decision-making process; * reasons for the decision are clearly documented; and the complainant is advised in writing of the outcome of the decision-making process to avoid any misunderstanding about the planned course of action. Recommendation 4 WAPS continue to evaluate Perth Watch House work practices and reporting systems to enhance efficiency and accountability, and it is the intention of the Commission to monitor and review the action undertaken, including the action outlined in a letter to the Commission of 4 July 2011 relating to custodial care, issue of Taser weapons, nursing services and cell extractions by ESG. Recommendation 5 DCS review the shortcomings outlined in the report, regarding video recording and reporting of incidents involving the use of force by ESG officers, and undertake appropriate action to address those shortcomings to ensure compliance with the requirements of Prisons Use of Force and Deployment of Tasers Policies.  The specific shortcomings set out in this report relate to the: * failure to include in the video recording of the cell extraction of Mr Spratt on 6 September 2008 the “briefing of the cell extraction team and the operation of the cell extraction (including the mediation process)” as required by PD5 and Instruction A19; and * inconsistencies between Incident Description Reports and Video footage in relation to the cell extractions of both Mr Spratt on 6 September 2008 and  Prisoner X on 2 August 2010. Further, in the view of the Commission the above specific shortcomings may be indicative of the need for broader systemic improvements that need to be addressed by DCS to ensure compliance with the requirements of PD5 and Instruction A19,  particularly in relation to reporting and review of Incident Description Reports and Video footage, and recording of incidents and preparation for incidents involving the use of force by ESG and other authorised officers. The Commission is concerned that, if proper care and attention is not given to the preparation for deployment of Taser weapons and the subsequent accurate reporting  of incidents involving the use of Taser weapons, the need to comply with relevant processes and procedures will in time be ignored. DCS should undertake a systemic review of current processes and procedures, to  ensure compliance with the requirements of PD5 and Instruction A19. Recommendation 6 DCS to consider allowing more time to the Standards and Review Branch, for analysis of incidents involving the use of Taser weapons where circumstances  prevent the review from occurring “within one week of the incident” as presently prescribed. DCS should, however, in all circumstances, ensure that the review process allows the  reviewer to critically evaluate any written reports and Video footage and, if necessary,  interview individual officers in relation to the use of force incidents, and prepare a review report. "Nonetheless, the review process should be both effective and efficient, including being completed without delay in order to ensure that the review is contemporaneous." Recommendation 7 DCS consider amending the Use of Force Policy to give prisoners sufficient time to comply with instructions, for officers to use negotiation and conflict resolution techniques, and to issue a warning to prisoners when the Use of Force by officers is imminent. Recommendation 8 DCS review the period of time officers can be attached to the ESG and consider introducing a tenure period for officers attached to the ESG. Recommendation 9 DCS review internal processes and procedures relating to the operation of the Infirmary within the Casuarina Prison Health Centre, and infirmaries within other prisons, with respect to the assessment of a patient’s medical condition and the provision and availability of services or avenues for investigation that would assist with the timely and accurate determination of the cause(s) of a patient’s complaints, thereby facilitating the provision of appropriate and adequate nursing and medical care.

Holiday news reporting

The differences between the MSM in Australia and overseas are at times sadly obvious with this story picked up from a news wire two days after the story ran in Sri Lanka about the 42 y/o Australian activist's abduction.

Reporter Udul Premarathne's story - chockablock with detail - cites there were 29 abductions in the last two months similar in nature to allegations in the case of the missing Australian, & 56 abductions since December.

Meanwhile...more or less oblivious to our own culture of censorship by spin and poor industry conditions, Aussie journalists pressed on stoically, amid redundancies and dwindling staff numbers, digging deep for bland "breaking Easter news" covers about IVF babies, car crashes and flower shows.

Sri Lankan police said that they did not conduct a raid targeting him and that they had no record Gunaratnam ever entered the country.

In the story Premakumar Gunaratnam's contacts said he diligently reported his locations everyday, as well as any changes to his mobile phone number, due to his concerns that secret police posed a serious threat to activist safety.

Gunaratnam's wife alleged he was kidnapped by two dozen men, who also vandalized his home and car during the attack.

The accusations that follow the Columbo Telly story seem no less inflammatory than those endured in Australia's online MSM, & spell out an argument for better control of reader comment.

##So the missing man is returning to Australia - reported today(thanks for the heads-up). The Hindu added some interesting complexity into the he-said she-said argy bargy. The Columbo Times said the other head of that group who disappeared at the same time has also been freed. In contrast, Agency France Presse claimed in the wake of the abduction of the two people, that the Australian activist was a "radical" who outstayed his visa by five months - no mention of that in India or Sri Lanka, though, interestingly.

Just a little bit of good news for Baby Blanche

The departure of the much-loved Narelle Johnson has led to the appointment of Robert Cock as the head of the Prisoner Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board as well as a judge of the District Court. Cock is a former DPP who oversaw the inquiry into the treatment of Marlon Noble.

Mr Porter said Justice Johnson was due to return to her role as a Supreme Court Judge today but that health reasons had prevented her from resuming this position immediately.