The CFMEU car-bomb hypocrisy

A former CFMEU insider writes:

So my old workplace was attacked with a car bomb last week. There are not many people in this country who can make that statement! The attack occurred in suburban Western Sydney, missing by less than an hour a community group meeting in the building.

A group of people stole a car, loaded it with canisters of petrol, smashed it through a three-metre high wrought iron gate and crashed it into the front doors of a three-storey office block. I had a look at the damage myself less than 12 hours after the attack. The picture to my eyes looked very Baghdad indeed.

Amazingly, since the attack, not one state or national political figure has come out and condemned the violence. The reason? The target was the NSW headquarters of the construction division of the CFMEU.

Imagine for a moment, if such an attack had been perpetrated on any other part of civil society. A church. An RSL. A scout hall even. Our political leaders would have been racing each other to the scene of the crime. Jostling to inspect the damage, crunch over the broken glass, comfort the staff, condemn the violence.

It would have been (mis)named as a terrorist attack. Bi-partisan condemnation would have come from all levels of government. The papers would be full of it for days.

Instead we get this ... silence.

The attack got good electronic media coverage Friday but major papers such as the so-called "paper of record" in my home town, the Sydney Morning Herald, literally ignored the attack. For the readers of the SMH and The Australian, the attack just simply never happened. Not worthy of being reported on it seems. Middle-class indolence at its most revealing.

But I am mostly angry at Kevin Rudd and our political leaders. Rudd and IR minister Julia Gillard have shown their true colours here. They are fakes. Shallow fakes. A serious attempt to terrorise and intimidate a key plank of our civil society and they are mute. Too busy seeking reflected glory from Jessica Watson, in Rudd's case. For these people, including Kristina Keneally, the puppet in NSW, condemning outrages must clearly never be about principle. This incident has demonstrated how there must always be a cynical political calculation behind every expression of sympathy or outrage. Some hollowman down in Canberra must have just done the calcs on Rudd or Gillard coming out on this and decided it didn't fit the government's "narrative." Or something. Best ignored.

Clearly our political leaders are happy to associate themselves with a disaster when politically expedient, but run a mile when its not. That's not what leadership is in my book. What a bunch of frauds.

The hypocrisy revealed in this incident is sickening. A bit of blue language on a building site and there are screaming headlines, a politicised Royal Commission (which could not find any of the corruption and organised crime in the building industry because it was only looking for it among the unions) and an industrial police with powers and an agenda that would make the Gestapo proud. But drive an improvised explosive device into a union office? Somewhere a cricket is audible in the silence.

The shocking explanation is that what happened at Lidcombe simply does not fit with the anti-CFMEU agenda of the political and media elites in this country.

The CFMEU has all sorts of problems, I should know I used to work there. But the reason a terrorist-style attack on its NSW headquarters can be ignored in this manner is because the union represents a danger to the political and media elites. Along with just a handful of other effective unions, it remains an example, an imperfect and flawed example, of ordinary people having a little bit of power in their working lives.

That's why the CFMEU is fair game.

Pakistan's drift into the hands of extremists - Tariq Ali

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 March 2009 10.32 GMT

The appalling terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan cricketers in Pakistan had one aim: to demonstrate to Washington that the country is ungovernable. This is the first time that cricketers have been targeted in a land where the sport is akin to religion. It marks the death of international cricket in Pakistan for the indefinite future,
but not just that, which is bad enough. The country's future is looking more and more precarious. We do not know which particular group carried out this attack, but its identity is hardly relevant. The fact is that it took place at a time when three interrelated events had angered a large bulk of the country and provided succour to extremist groups and their patrons.

The first is undoubtedly the foolish decision by Washington (backed by Britain) to send more troops to Afghanistan, which has now united all those resisting them in that country and the North-West Frontier province of Pakistan. Instead of searching for a viable exit strategy, Obama has gone for a surge. On several occasions, I have warned that escalating the war in Afghanistan could seriously destabilise Pakistan and its army.

Second, Senator Dianne Feinstein's revelation that the US drones being used to target "militants" and "terrorist havens" inside Pakistan were, in fact, being despatched by the US from military and air-force bases inside Pakistan (obviously, with the approval of the Pakistani military and civilian leaders) created mayhem in the country. The
shock and dismay should not be underestimated. Half-hearted government denials further fanned the flames. Since many in the country regard Zardari and his cronies running the country as US drones, the anger was multiplied.

Domestically, the country is a mess. The People's party has learnt and forgotten nothing. Corruption is rife and stories circulate linking the money being paid by bankers directly to the president's house. Add to this Zardari's refusal to honour an election pledge restoring an independent judiciary, and his decision to manipulate tame judges to disqualify his opponents has not gone down well. The controversy was aggravated by Zardari's move to dismiss the elected government in the country's most populous and strategically important province, the Punjab (capital: Lahore), and impose direct rule, after its chief minister apparently refused to accept a bribe in the shape of a
lucrative business deal in return for abandoning the fight to restore the chief justice fired by the military leader over a year ago.

The failures of this government and its inability to defend the country's interests or its population from drones or terrorist attacks are paving the way for the return of the army to power as a way of avoiding a serious split within its own ranks. All that is awaited is a green light from the US embassy in Islamabad. Not that this would solve anything, but it might create the illusion of stability for a few months. It's no good Pakistani politicians mumbling that this is "our Mumbai". The fact is that, over the last year, the Zardari government has done a great deal for itself and its clients, but nothing for the people or the country. The more Pakistan drifts, the more opportunities offer themselves to the extremists.

Dr Mohammed Haneef and the anti-terrorist laws

CANTERBURY-BANKSTOWN PEACE GROUP

PRESS RELEASE

DR MOHAMED HANEEF AND THE ANTITERRORIST LAWS

Finally, what was obvious to most –even without an inquiry- has been confirmed.

The unholy alliance of the Howard government, Australian Federal Police (AFP), Queensland Police, DPP, Immigration Department, and even ASIO, gave us another clear example of the real reasons for the “anti-terrorism” laws.

They fabricated a terrorist in Australia for cynical political purposes and to justify the existence of these laws.

The case against Mohamed Haneef case have been quashed by the Clarke’s inquiry, who confirmed that all the “evidence” in this case were lies, half truths and flawed interpretation. All justified with the usual clichés of the corrupt “none told me” and “everything we did was to defend Australia”.

As with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the “terrorist doctor” in Australia never existed.

The paradox is, with the destruction of Dr Haneef life, what little credibility of Keelty and the AFP, John Howard, Kevin Andrews, Philip Ruddock and all others involved in the case had, was also destroyed.

Raul Bassi, from the Canterbury Bankstown Peace Group (CBPG), said: “This disaster only could happen under the draconian antiterrorist laws brought by the former Howard government with the support of the ALP. This explains also, why the Rudd government fell short of supporting a proper inquiry into this case. Justifying the former government actions, defending Keelty and the AFP despite of obvious wrongdoings and finally, failing to offer Dr Haneef an apology and the compensation he clearly deserves”.

“What credibility”, Bassi added, “exist then in the other supposed terrorist cases? What was the real role of this alliance in the kidnap, rendition and incarceration in Guantanamo Bay of Mamdouh Habib? What was their role in the David Hicks ordeal? How can we be sure that the Goulburn 9 case is not based in the same pack of lies and mistakes?

The only way to stops another Haneef case is getting rid of these laws and review all the trials under these laws, past and present. If there is any reason to charge the convicted or the still accused, do it under the common law.

On this matter, the CBPG is promoting a national petition to be presented to the Senate Review Committee next year, demanding the repeal of these laws. The CBPG is calling also, for a judicial inquiry on the Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks cases, to know definitely the true role of the former government and the “intelligence” organizations in their ordeals.

For more information contact Raul Bassi at 0403037376.

The Assault on Mumbai

India's leaders need to look closer to home

By TARIQ ALI. First published in Counterpunch, November 27, 2008

The terrorist assault on Mumbai’s five-star hotels was well planned, but did not require a great deal of logistic intelligence: all the targets were soft. The aim was to create mayhem by shining the spotlight on India and its problems and in that the terrorists were successful. The identity of the black-hooded group remains a mystery.

The Deccan Mujahedeen, which claimed the outrage in an e-mail press release, is certainly a new name probably chosen for this single act. But speculation is rife. A senior Indian naval officer has claimed that the attackers (who arrived in a ship, the M V Alpha) were linked to Somali pirates, implying that this was a revenge attack for the Indian Navy’s successful if bloody action against pirates in the Arabian Gulf that led to heavy casualties some weeks ago.

The Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, has insisted that the terrorists were based outside the country. The Indian media has echoed this line of argument with Pakistan (via the Lashkar-e-Taiba) and al-Qaeda listed as the usual suspects.

But this is a meditated edifice of official India’s political imagination. Its function is to deny that the terrorists could be a homegrown variety, a product of the radicalization of young Indian Muslims who have finally given up on the indigenous political system. To accept this view would imply that the country’s political physicians need to heal themselves.

Al Qaeda, as the CIA recently made clear, is a group on the decline. It has never come close to repeating anything vaguely resembling the hits of 9/11.

Its principal leader Osama bin Laden may well be dead (he certainly did not make his trademark video intervention in this year’s Presidential election in the United States) and his deputy has fallen back on threats and bravado.

What of Pakistan? The country’s military is heavily involved in actions on its Northwest frontier where the spillage from the Afghan war has destabilized the region. The politicians currently in power are making repeated overtures to India. The Lashkar-e-Taiba, not usually shy of claiming its hits, has strongly denied any involvement with the Mumbai attacks.

Why should it be such a surprise if the perpetrators are themselves Indian Muslims? Its hardly a secret that there has been much anger within the poorest sections of the Muslim community against the systematic discrimination and acts of violence carried out against them of which the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in shining Gujarat was only the most blatant and the most investigated episode, supported by the Chief Minister of the State and the local state apparatuses.

Add to this the continuing sore of Kashmir which has for decades been treated as a colony by Indian troops with random arrests, torture and rape of Kashmiris an everyday occurrence. Conditions have been much worse than in Tibet, but have aroused little sympathy in the West where the defense of human rights is heavily instrumentalised.

Indian intelligence outfits are well aware of all this and they should not encourage the fantasies of their political leaders. Its best to come out and accept that there are severe problems inside the country. A billion Indians: 80 percent Hindus and 14 percent Muslims. A very large minority that cannot be ethnically cleansed without provoking a wider conflict.

None of this justifies terrorism, but it should, at the very least, force India’s rulers to direct their gaze on their own country and the conditions that prevail. Economic disparities are profound. The absurd notion that the trickle-down effects of global capitalism would solve most problems can now be seen for what it always was: a fig leaf to conceal new modes of exploitation.

Tariq Ali’s latest book, ‘The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power’ is published by Scribner.

What is really happening in Pakistan? Can American arms win in Afghanistan? Activist/historian Tariq Ali launches new book and updates the Afghan war, and the daily struggle of Pakistan in the age of corruption.

Popout

Original audio source

Free the Cuban Five! - Emergency rally in Sydney

Free the Cuban Five!

Protest rally outside US Consulate

Martin Place, Sydney

5pm Thursday 12 June

On June 4 the US Appeals Court upheld the convictions of Gerardo Hernández, René González, Antonio Guerrero, Ramon Labañino, and Fernando González who are internationally known as the Cuban Five. These revolutionaries have spent a decade in US prison on political frame-up charges.

Before their arrest, the five—two U.S. citizens and three Cuban immigrants—were gathering information on right-wing Cuban-American groups that have staged violent attacks against Cuba with Washington’s complicity.

Arrested by the FBI on Sept. 13, 1998, they were denied bail and kept in solitary confinement for 17 months. Adriana Pérez and Olga Salanueva, have been repeatedly denied entry by U.S. authorities to visit their husbands, Gerardo Hernández and René González.

The U.S. government falsely charged them with “conspiracy to commit espionage,” “conspiracy to act as an unregistered foreign agent,” and—in the case of Hernández—“conspiracy to commit murder.” Although none of the main charges were proven, they were convicted and given sentences ranging from 15 years to a double life sentence.

The Appeals Court did rule that the life sentences of Antonio Guerrero and Fernando González, and the 19-year sentence of Ramon Labañino were too harsh given that “no top secret documents were gathered or transmitted.” Their sentences will be reviewed and reduced. However, the double life sentence of Gerardo Hernández and the 15-year sentence of René González were upheld.

Australia-Cuba Friendship Society, Free the Cuban Five Committee, Leonard Weinglass Tour Committee & Committee in Solidarity with Cuba- Western Sydney

For more information: 0424 652 802 or 0411 732 824

Check out http://www.antiterroristas.cu/ and http://www.freethefive.org/ for more information on the campaign.

US/Colombia hands off Venezuela and Ecuador!

www.venezuelasolidarity.org

Act now to stop war in Latin America

What only a few days ago seemed like a remote prospect has suddenly become a real possibility. The Colombian military’s brutal massacre of 21 (at last count) guerrillas with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – Peoples Army (FARC-EP), including Raul Reyes, the FARC’s chief negotiator and spokesperson, in Ecuador on March 1 marks a dramatic leap in the United States’ plan to potentially trigger off an armed confrontation between Colombia and Venezuela.

These events should be of major concern for all supporters of the Venezuelan revolution, and anti-war and peace activists the world over.

On March 1, in violation of all international treaties regarding defence of national sovereignty, the Colombian government of President Alvaro Uribe bombed Ecuadorian territory to assassinate of Reyes and the other FARC guerrillas. The governments of Ecuador and Venezuela responded by mobilising troops to their respective borders with Colombia, stating their willingness to defend their national sovereignty at all costs. Both countries broke diplomatic ties with the Colombian regime and announced that they would seek an international condemnation of its action.

The Colombian government has attempted to justify its actions as part of the fight against “terrorism”. But this is just the latest in a string of lies the Colombian government made in order to keep face. Its first lie was claiming that it never violated Ecuadorian sovereignty. Then the lie that its actions were a response to FARC attacks was exposed as images emerged of the murdered guerrillas in their pyjamas.

Following these unjustifiable actions and, subsequently, a weak “apology” to Ecuador, the Colombian government has tried to claim the existence of documents, obtained from three laptops that “miraculously” survived the bombing, that link Ecuador and Venezuela to the “terrorism” of the FARC. Both Ecuador and Venezuela have denounced the claims as “absolute lies.”

Judging by the quality of the claims made in these documents, (in which the FARC seem to have discussed highly sensitive information without using any form of code), it appears that what were found were the same laptops that provided the “information” about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq.

All this is a smokescreen for the real aim - part of a plan drawn up in Washington and being enacted by its puppets in Colombia. The Colombian government has revealed that it had the coordinates of Reyes’ whereabouts for several weeks, including while he was in Colombian territory, yet it chose to act while he was in Ecuador. Moreover, the bombing was carried out only days after Venezuela, with Ecuador’s support, led a successful international mission to receive the unilateral handover of four FARC prisoners, the success of which gave hope to many that peaceful solution to the conflict in Colombia was possible.

Despite the brutal attack on them, the FARC guerrillas have declared their willingness to continue with the process of releasing prisoners as part of trying to reach a political solution.

The longer term aim of the Colombian government’s most recent attack is to establish a precedent for violating the sovereignty of other countries so it can carry out military actions outside its borders as part of its supposed war on “terrorism”. In other words, it wants to establish itself as the Israel of Latin America, with support from Washington to carry out further such actions.

More immediately, the Colombian regime, which receives more US military funding than any other country in the region, is attempting to end the humanitarian accord being promoted by the FARC and to provoke a conflict with Venezuela, whose president, Hugo Chavez, has played a central role in efforts to achieve peace in Colombia. Colombia has suffered from six decades of brutal state-sponsored terrorism, including from infamous right-wing death squads linked to the military. Hundreds of trade unionists and other activists are assassinated in Colombia each year. A humanitarian accord would force Colombia’s elite to dismantle this terror apparatus.

Washington too fears a political solution to Colombia’s internal war which provides a pretext for the militarisation of the region through Plan Colombia and now Plan Patriot. Any moves towards peace put into question the role of the US, which has pushed a policy of violence and conflict that, after decades, has achieved worse than nothing.

Frightened by the powerful alternative provided by the pro-people, pro-peace policies of the revolutionary government of Venezuela – an alternative that is inspiring millions of people around the world and strengthening Latin American integration - the US and Colombian regimes are escalating their policy of war to try to derail Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution. Alongside their military provocation, their lies about Venezuela being a “gateway for narco-trafficking” and involved in “aiding terrorism” are aimed at justifying any attack on Venezuela as a “necessary” part of the US’s so-called war on terror.

The Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network (AVSN) joins with the overwhelming majority Latin American governments in condemning Colombia’s actions. We support the actions taken by Venezuela and Ecuador to defend their national sovereignty. We applaud their dignified stance in breaking relations with Colombia, and demand that the Australian government do the same.

Without peace and justice in Colombia, there can be no peace for revolutionary Venezuela. That is why the AVSN is actively supporting the March 6 international day of action called by the families of victims of state and paramilitary violence in Colombia, and urges all people who support a peaceful, political solution to the Colombian conflict and Venezuela’s right to self-determination to join us.

US, Colombia hands off Venezuela and Latin America!

A statement from the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network

March 5, 2008

Solidarity with the Urewera 17! Free them now!

from Aotearoa IMC

[Background]
Five arrestees appeared in the Rotorua and Wellington District Courts today, after yesterday evening's revoking of Jamie Lockett's bail in the Auckland High Court.

In Rotorua, Tame Iti was denied bail and will reappear on October 24th. In Wellington, four arrestees were expected to have a hearing on whether or not their cases would be moved to Auckland, but no decision was reached. All four will reappear on Friday for a bail hearing.

Around 4-5 people in Auckland have been questioned by police on Tuesday and Wednesday, although none have been arrested. It is extremely important that anyone called in for questioning has a lawyer present, and makes no comment whatsoever. There is no such thing as a harmless conversation when it comes to police questioning.

Solidarity events held across Aotearoa / NZ and Australia

Melbourne, Australia - 30 people gathered outside the NZ Consulate Tuesday morning to voice their opposition to the arrests. [ Report: 1 and 2 (with photos) ]

Christchurch - Around 80 people gathered in Cathedral Square Tuesday evening to send a message of support and solidarity to the arrestees, their families and friends and the people of Tuhoe. [ Flyer ] [ 3 Short Videos ]

Sydney, Australia - Wednesday morning saw 30 people protest outside the NZ Consulate-General. [ Report ]

Wellington - 200 people attended a demonstration was held today outside the District Court before four arrestees appeared inside. Some people wore stickers stating "terrorist sympathiser".

Stand in solidarity!

Everywhere: Any letters emailed to lettersforprisoners[at]riseup[dot]net will printed out and distributed to arrestees. Obviously don't write anything that could negatively impact on you or anyone else!

Auckland: A solidarity group has been formed, and will meet next on Thursday. Details to come.
Lower Kaimai: A weekend has been organised to discuss and organise in solidarity with the arrestees [ Callout ].

Christchurch: A solidarity demonstration will be held in Cathedral Square at 12noon on Saturday.

Sydney, Australia: Public meeting & demonstration on Thursday October 25th, 5:30pm outside NZ Consulate-General, 55 Hunter St, Sydney

Melbourne, Australia: A solidarity demonstration will be held Saturday 27th in Federation Square, 12noon.

At this stage, donations can be made to a defence fund organised by Global Peace & Justice Auckland. Identify the donation as being for the defence fund. 38-9000-0099726-00 GLOBAL PEACE & JUSTICE AKLD.

Riot squad called on sacked workers!

Just when you thought nothing more stupid could be done by the organising committees for capitalism in Australia (known, ironically perhaps, as "Governments"), this happened.

After almost 500 workers lost their jobs, and had all pay and entitlements (including their Superannuation) frozen when their employers - McArthur Express - went belly-up and into receivership, the company locked them out at the gates. They naturally decided to protest.

Now, there a number of ways to deal with this kind of problem. One of them, and the most reasonable in the wombats' eyes, would be to give the workers open slather on the company - they are, after all, owed around a million dollars. Naturally, Capital doesn't think this way and disagrees.

You might even call in the tame union officials - and the TWU all-too-often falls into that camp - to talk them into a kind of vote-ALP supine submission. But no...

The Clever-clogs-that-be decided that in the current climate - what with terrorism, and anti-Howardism, and anti-WorkChoices-ism being so rife at the moment (take, for example the 15,000 workers that rallied in Melbourne today) - it would be best to call in the Riot Squad. And that they did, resulting in two arrests, one woman being injured by over-the-top police violence, and a worker being crash-tackled. (Now, imagine if they tried to pull the same trick in Melbourne today...).

Apparently it didn't go down too well up here either:

Transport Workers Union senior official Mark Crosdale said the mood outside the depot was angry.

No surprise there. Even less surprise, then, ought to be on the faces of employers and ALP MPs when, after the elections (and if Labor wins), they find that workers don't take too kindly to the WorkChoices-lite of "Forward With Fairness". After all, when the "workers' party" provides an "alternative" that includes maintaining the ban on the right to strike, not restoring the right to entry, and maintaining the ABCC - the secret police force used to harass building industry workers as though they were worse than terrorists, who would be surprised?

And, just to leave no doubt as to which side of the locked gates Kevin Rudd falls on, at the WA Labor Party Conference back in June, Rudd was honest enough to point out that:

"When it comes to the construction industry, we support a strong cop on the beat."

No doubt that's a great comfort to the workers at McArthur Express. Once again, the question is posed, if Labor won't put workers first, who will?

Jack Thomas loses challenge on control orders

This morning (August 2, 2007), the High Court handed down its judgment in the case of Thomas v Mowbray - better known as the challenge by Joseph Terence "Jihad Jack" Thomas against the control orders placed on him by the Federal Government under the new anti-terror laws.

By 5 to 2, the Court found the legislation allowing the control orders valid. The Wombats were not surprised, only disappointed, angered, and and somewhat peeved.

Unsurprised, because we have little trust left in the corrupt, empty shell that is the liberal bourgeoise democracy and its 'rule of law'.

Angered at a system (it extends beyond merely one government, federal or otherwise) that should allow such a law to be passed in the first place, and angered that the High Court should go against even the logic of its own flawed tradition and reasoning and support the legislation. That an unconvicted man could be placed under such a regime.

Angered also that it comes so soon after the victory for Dr Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor arrested for terrorism (and subsequently bailed, then had his visa revoked, then had the charges dropped, then got deported anyway) because he gave his cousin a SIM card, and his cousing might have been involved in the bungled terror attcks in Britain. In so doing, the Thomas judgment gives the Howard Government a bit of a distraction in the terror stakes as its own bungling and political football-playing over Haneef is exposed bloodily in the media.

And not just a little peeved that at least one wombat now has an enormous (over 200 pages) judgment to read in order to scrabble together a 4000-word paper on the thing.

Justice Michael Kirby (who now bears the dubious title of most dissenting judge in High Court history) was true to form, as the fall-guy to straight-man Kenneth Hayne in the minority. Kirby's criticisms, however, reflect some of the central concerns felt about both the legislation and the judgment.

The High Court's decided that the defence power was a valid 'head of power' to enable the legislation under which Thomas' control was ordered.

The Wombats will provide (in a few days, once the judgment has been scrutinised - maybe weeks given the size) an analysis of just how far this goes, but Kirby's concerns over the breadth of interpretation given to the defence power seem legitimate.

In a nutshell, the court found that the defence power could be used for the purposes of combating terrorism, and could be used for matters internal to Australia, both of which are somewhat worrying developments.

As Kirby points out:

“Moreover, drawing a line between acts designed to coerce or intimidate an Australian government for a political, religious or ideological cause (thus falling within the definition) and pure advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action (falling outside of the definition) could be difficult,’’

The Wombats will return later - including double-checking this decision with the Communist Party case and a few points on the Bill of Rights debate - but in the meantime, we are left with the hard facts. There's little point trusting in the dessicated follies of the legal system to protect civil liberties and basic human rights.

These things are won (as they always have been) on the streets and in the workplace.