Showing posts with label Double Standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Double Standards. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Homophily Divisions-Pacific [Old] Media Reports On Fiji. [Updated]

According to Wikipedia Homophily:

Homophily (i.e., love of the same) is the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others. The presence of homophily has been discovered in a vast array of network studies. Within their extensive review paper, McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001) cite over one hundred studies that have observed homophily in some form or another. These include age, gender, class, organizational role, and so forth.

In their original formulation of homophily, Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954) distinguished between status homophily and value homophily. Status homophily means that individuals with similar social status characteristics are more likely to associate with each other than by chance. By contrast, value homophily refers to a tendency to associate with others who think in similar ways, regardless of differences in status.





Cafe Pacific most recent posting highlights the new launch of Pacific Scoop website, a seemingly non-partisan, in-depth coverage of Pacific island current affairs. Albeit edited by AUT's Media Center.

Croz Walsh's latest posting laments about the inaccuracy of reports, making up the total Amnesty International final communique, also reported in a Pacific Scoop article.

What was totally amiss, was an opinion article dated Sept 8th 2009, that was published also in Pacific Scoop, authored by Thankur Ranjit Singh, titled "Pacific Media Fail To Appreciate Fiji Problems" which basically rebutted the Tongan journalist's (Kalafi Moala) recent opinions about Fiji.







Moala's opinions was published in Maitangi Tonga (M.T)website dated Sept 6th.

The excerpt of M.T web article:


Bainimarama's coup-coup land

06 Sep 2009, 16:13


Nuku'alofa, Tonga:

Editor,

THE question is not whether Fiji's dictator Frank Bainimarama will fail or not, but rather when? Yes, when will he realise that he will never succeed in his false and conceited quest for a reformed Fiji?
Someone could stop him dead in his path before he comes to his senses.

When the military ruler declared his coup to oust the elected Qarase government in 2006, there were those who applauded him for his vision for a new Fiji, a Fiji that they claimed would be fully reformed and free of racial discrimination in its electoral system.

Even though there were those who decried the idea of another coup, many were nevertheless hopeful that maybe this coup was a good coup. Finally we have someone who is fighting for the "good of the country," they said - for the good of everyone, indigenous Fijians, Indo Fijians, and every other race that calls Fiji home.

There are no good coups. One coup sows the seeds for the next one, and so it goes on into a vicious cycle difficult to break. As one entertainer joked, after your third coup you can easily become a coup-coup land.

But that was 2006, and the sentiments that accompanied the many declarations of good intentions have all faded away, and no one except Bainimarama and his cronies seem to have any more faith that this military dictator is better than his other coup predecessors. In fact he may be the worst, and furthermore he has already taken Fiji down the road to self-destruction and despair.

This is not primarily because of the external pressures - the dismissals from the Pacific Forum and the Commonwealth and the many economic and political sanctions against Fiji as a result of actions of the Bainimarama government. Those are bad enough, but whenever you have a government that violates the basic freedoms and rights of its own people, it is only a matter of time before there is an implosion that will not only discard that kind of a government but will also thrust that unfortunate nation into abysmal political, social, and economic turmoil.

Fiji is already on the edge of disaster, and Bainimarama does not seem to care, as he continues to deepen his imperious treatment of the various institutions that have held Fijian society together and guarantee its freedom.

Here are some of Bainimarama's fanciful actions that have brought him the fear of the locals and the wrath of the international community: his abrogation of the Constitution and the whimsical dismissal of the Court justices; his disregard of the Chiefly system of Fiji; his violent and hateful treatment of the media; his violation of the rights of the Methodist Church to meet in their annual conference; his creation of a New Methodist Church to be a religious instrument to prop up support for his policies; his defiance of regional and international calls for restoration of democratic processes; and his opposition to dissent, attempting to create a society not of national unity but of national uniformity.

There has never been anyone in the history of mankind that has done the kind of things Bainimarama is doing and survived. Those dictators and rulers in every generation, in any nation, have always failed. They were doomed to fail once they violate the very principles that make any society keep itself alive and growing.

Just as a fall from a sixty-storied building will most likely break every bone in the body, and surely result in death because of breaking the law of gravity, Bainimarama's fall is guaranteed. You do not break the laws of nature or the human laws of morality. The laws break you. Thus the question now is what can be done to soften the blow on the rest of Fijian society? How long will it take for Fiji to recover from this incredible nightmare?

In particular, the treatment Bainimarama has dished out to the Fijian media has been unprecedented. Foreign publishers and journalists have been deported. Those with dissenting views have suffered incredible harassment, and so have those who have tried to report the truth of what goes on in Fiji. Censorship is imposed on every newsroom in the country.

Notable among those journalists whose rights and freedom have been grossly violated is Netani Rika, editor of the Fiji Times. His house has been smashed by some of Bainimarama's goons, and his car was firebombed.

Rika's family had to seek refuge elsewhere because of the danger they encountered at their family home. Rika himself had received phone calls from the Commodore on several occasions, swearing at him, threatening him, simply for not complying with the kind of coercive editorial manipulation imposed on the Fiji Times.

More recently after a lecture tour of Queensland, Australia, in which Rika talked about the difficulties he was experiencing with his colleagues in Fiji, he was again threatened even before he returned home. This time, it was a death threat. Rika had to take cautionary measures to protect his family, since he took this threat quite seriously.

Death threats against journalists are not common in the Pacific Islands, at least not like in Philippines, Sri Lanka, or Pakistan where journalists are killed just for doing their job. Even in Bainimarama's Fiji, you do not threaten to kill someone just because you disagree with him. But that which was not common is now the norm in an island nation that is destined to crash land because the skipper flying this "island paradise" is consumed with a vision that is impossible to implement.

The vision is not only wrong, but his way of trying to fulfill it is wrong and grossly immoral. Even God Almighty does not coerce people to believe and love him. He has gifted humanity with the freedom to choose, for as a God of love, he understands that love must involve the freedom to choose.

Bainimarama wants a society that must conform to his ideal, and he is doomed to fail because you cannot force a people to obey. Well, maybe for a while, out of fear, but that is an impossible social scenario to sustain.

If dealing a harsh hand to the media was not enough, Fiji's dictator decided he was going to bring the country's largest church group to subjection. A Methodist himself, he seems to take pride in the fact that he needs to suppress any and all dissenting elements within the Methodist Church.

Two of the Methodist church leaders were arrested for allegedly violating the Public Emergency Regulations (PER), and so was Rewa's Paramount Chief, Ro Teimumu Kepa, for announcing the Methodists will still have their conference at her district despite the dictator's ban.

Kepa declined to make any immunity deal with the State and opted to make a not guilty plea for inciting under PER.

Whether the Methodists will stand up in defiance of the Bainimarama edict or not is of no consequence. The Commodore had already acted to create and support the New Methodist Church, a fundamentalist brand of the Church that is seeking mass conversions to its ranks, and certain actions from the Police are now touted as "orders from the Holy Spirit."

According to Rika, it's a "Jesus Crusade" that is comparable to the rule of the Taliban. Bainimarama's government believe that if they can convert everyone to their brand of Christianity, they will consequently create a "Peaceful Society."

And so, Fiji is experiencing a roller-coaster ride in which a dictator takes out all the fundamental pillars that have held together society, and seeks to impose a personal utopian vision on a people whose lives have started to be adversely affected in every realm.

Kalafi Moala

kalafi.moala@sbcglobal.net

However, the most intriguing thing about this mysterious deletion of the Pacific Scoop article (authored by T. R. Singh), was that: a Google Blog page search (as of 11am US PST. Sept. 8th 2009) lists the article; but it is dated 29th Nov. 1999 posted by admin, who obviously wasn't a very keen reader or scholar of Fiji's recent political history.



The events showing on these censored Pacific Scoop articles (courtesy of Google blog search), clearly remarks about the recent happenings, a decade after 1999.

Case in point, the description of a google blog search listing of T. R. Singh's opinion piece refers to Qarase's regime.

SiFM Fact Check:
Qarase did not enter politics until after the 2000 Fiji coup
and was nominated as the Interim PM in 2000 post-Fiji coup, according to a BBC article.

The excerpt of BBC article:

Profile: Fiji's Laisenia Qarase
Laisenia Qarase
Laisenia Qarase: Softly-spoken former banker
When Laisenia Qarase was first appointed Fiji's prime minister in 2000 as a response to the coup attempt which saw the toppling of the elected government, his political skills were an unknown quantity.

His interim administration was charged with organising the general election, formulating a rescue package for the ailing economy and drawing up a new constitution.

Laisenia Qarase
Born 1941
Educated Suva Boys Grammar School
Commerce degree from University of Auckland
1983 - managing director Fiji Development Bank
1998 -head of Fiji Merchant Bank
July 2000 - appointed interim prime minister
Just over one year later, Mr Qarase, an ethnic Fijian, has demonstrated his political acumen by winning office at the head of his own newly created party, the nationalist Soqoso Duavata ni Lewenivuana, taking 31 out of 71 parliamentary seats.

His campaign focused on indigenous Fijians' fears of political domination by the minority ethnic-Indian population which already controls much of the islands' economic life.

The softly spoken former banker first spelled out his programme in July 2000 when he issued his blueprint to move Fiji forward from the political coup, promising political priority for native Fijians and affirmative action to advance and accelerate their development.

But he insisted no one will be disenfranchised or excluded in his planning a common future. He said ethnic Indians, who make up 44% of the population, would not be left out in the cold when the new constitution was drawn up.

Ailing economy

Until last year, Mr Qarase, 59, had been better known as a banker than as a politician.


Mahendra Chaudhry - rejected by Fiji's voters
His career has seen him managing the Fiji Development Bank before leaving public service in 1998 to head the Merchant Bank of Fiji.

One year later he became a senator, nominated by Fiji's powerful Great Council of Chiefs.

Before the May 2000 coup, Mr Qarase was a constant critic of the government of ethnic-Indian Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.

As a banker he is acutely aware of the detrimental effect the coup has had on the country's economy.

Fiji's economy has been undermined by the crisis, with sugar production halted, tourist resorts closed and thousands of jobs lost following trade bans.

See also:

10 Sep 01 | Asia-Pacific
Nationalist sworn in as Fiji PM
09 Sep 01 | Asia-Pacific
Analysis: Fiji risks new ethnic gulf
06 Sep 01 | Asia-Pacific
Fiji vote 'rigged' says former PM
03 May 01 | Asia-Pacific
Timeline: Fiji
Internet links:


The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

Links to more Asia-Pacific stories are at the foot of the page.



Conspiracy by Scoop or Google or both?


That particular article appeared in the Pacific Scoop website, for a couple of hours and was mysteriously deleted.

Below is the original url of the Pacific Scoop web article:

http://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2009/09/pacific-media-fail-to-appreciate-fiji-problem/








Unfortunately, this unadulterated censorship which the Pacific media keep insisting is prevalent in Fiji and the Pacific are also guilty of the same sin. This area of editing (which is apparently used in Pacific Scoop)where dissenting views against the main stream media talking points are blocked by the very gate keepers, who complain at the drop of a hat about media freedom restrictions.

Yet, when these main stream media are measured against the same standards, proof of hypocrisy exists.

It is also a reminder of the echo chamber existing in the world wide web, where double speak and innuendo is prevalent, and those without critical thinking skills will soak up this dribble without any second thought and echo the same lies.

SiFM readers are mostly omitted from that segment of dumbness.

On The Media (OTM) explores this subject "echo chamber" and "cyber cascade" which the Pacific media in general has fallen..

OTM also discusses the issue of echo chamber and its influence on new and social media, internet communication. Factored into that network, was a foundation built on Homophily media trends.

Apparently, AUT media studies (among other so called Pacific media experts) have yet to identify, address these issues (in academic papers)on echo chamber reporting, homophily tendencies and its influence on new media and its effects within the Pacific.

So much for these over priced journalism schools and self glorified experts.

Brooke, Clive and Ethan at Aspen

Over the summer Brooke hosted a conversation with Ethan Zuckerman, founder of Global Voices, and Clive Thompson, technology writer for the New York Times Magazine and Wired.

The topic was homophily: the tendency for individuals to seek out others who share their preferences and ideas. While some would argue this phenomenon has existed forever, Brooke, Clive and Ethan discuss whether the internet exacerbates it or, instead, exposes people to new ideas.

Discussion on MP3 player, posted below.





Besides the underhand practices of gutter journalism, that is so pervasive in certain corridors of main stream Pacific Press rooms, other opinions give contrasting perspectives.

One such view is from Indian Weekender (I.W) Editor in Chief, Dev Nardkani.

The excerpt of the I. W opinion article:


West’s attitude to Fiji has changed region’s geopolitics
Thursday, September 03, 2009 Dev Nadkarni

[Image Left] Suva's bustling town centre. Fiji is the gateway to the Pacific. Photo: Dev Nadkarni

Fiji’s suspension from the Commonwealth on September 1 was a dead certainty. Its earlier suspension from the 16-nation Pacific Islands Forum didn’t deter it and it would have been naïve to think that the threat of this week’s suspension – it’s third from the Commonwealth since independence – would make the Fijian administration change its mind.

Commodore Bainimarama has repeatedly said that there will be no turning back from the roadmap that has been set for the country to hold elections in 2014 after the reforms planned in the troubled nation’s political system are completed.

The fact that there is little that the Western world can do about it is beginning to dawn on its leaders after more than two years of a stubbornly belligerent stand that involved slapping a slew of sanctions aimed at crippling Fiji’s administration, which they undoubtedly hoped would bring it to its knees. This has simply not happened and that tack has all but come unstuck.

Responding to Fiji’s suspension from the Commonwealth, Murray McCully, New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs has said there will not be any more sanctions from New Zealand’s side. There simply can’t be. It’s a sign that New Zealand and Australia have now realised that the isolationist strategy they have stuck to since early 2007 has not worked. In fact, it has only ended up hurting innocent Fiji citizens more than anyone else.

Despite suspending it, Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma has said that the 53-member grouping will continue to engage with Fiji and is sending a delegation to Suva later this month.

Fiji is too be important to be trivialised with the insensitive approach that New Zealand and Australia have had toward it over the past two and a half years. It has always been the gateway to the South Pacific and will remain so. Any attempts to shift it to a neighbouring country like Samoa – which Samoa’s leadership has repeatedly sought – is wishful thinking and well nigh impossible for reasons of its inferior infrastructure, costs and sheer logistics, which New Zealand and Australia simply cannot afford.

Despite suspending it from its membership, the Pacific Forum is still headquartered in Fiji. This is akin to the United Nations, based in New York, suspending the United States from its membership. In the words of a senior Pacific Forum functionary, “The Forum needs Fiji far more than Fiji needs the Forum.”

Nature abhors a vacuum and the one created by New Zealand and Australia has been quickly filled by aggressively ambitious China. The Asian economic powerhouse has stepped up both its profile and investments in Fiji. As well as a huge new embassy, the Chinese are helping Fiji catch up with infrastructure investments that have received a setback. A new super luxury hotel with Venice-style waterways and gondolas is one of the bigger private sector investments that is coming up near Nadi.

The geopolitics of the Pacific has been in slow ferment for about two decades now with Asian powers like China, Taiwan and Japan playing increasingly important roles in its development. It will now begin to accelerate. And the West’s handling of the Fiji situation since early 2007 has already proved to be the catalyst.

Changes in the UN Law of the Sea has enabled Pacific Island countries to redraw their continental shelf boundaries to include several million additional square kilometres of open ocean to their exclusive economic zones (EEZ). This will vest them with rights to farm greater swathes of their waters and prospect larger areas of the ocean bed for minerals and oil, something that has already begun to happen – and no prizes for guessing which country is in the best position to win the lion’s share of those prospecting and mining contracts.

Though it puts up a brave face, so worried is the Western world of the changing geopolitics of the Pacific, which is the world’s last largely untapped resource-rich region, that a couple of months ago US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rather ingenuously said that the US was “not ceding” the Pacific to anyone.

Her use of the word “ceding” is interesting. One can only cede when one possesses something. It betrays the West’s – certainly the US’ – long held belief that the Pacific is its own backyard.

Nothing could be farther than the truth. And its attitude to Fiji has helped in no small way in crashing that belief.

Dev Nadkarni is editor-in-chief of the Indian Weekender and a former journalism coordinator at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji.

Update On Pacific Scoop Article (recently updated 8:25 GMT)

T.R.Singh's Pacific Scoop (P.S) article reappears almost magically as SiFM post initially pointed out its absence. The new Pacific Scoop Reposting of T.R. Singh's article. Albeit retitled.

The excerpt of the reposted P.S article:

When the Pacific media is misinformed about democracy Fiji-style

PJR_15_1 _Cover_2009

Cartoon: PJR/Malcolm Evans

Pacific.Scoop
Opinion – By Thakur Ranjit Singh

A recent Fiji Tourism advertisement on Television New Zealand, showing an Indo-Fijian lady doing a salutation Namaskaar in front of the iconic Nadi Temple, is not only unusual but historic as well.

This is because in the so-called pre-coup “democratic Fiji”, the other 40 percent of the population never existed in any tourism promotions and hardly existed under Laisenia Qarase’s democratic regime. They are the persecuted and envied Indo-Fijians.

Indo-Fijians in the Pacific exceed the populations of Samoa, Tonga and the whole of Polynesia and Micronesia put together. Yet when one looks at the role Samoan and Tongan media personnel and journalists play in Fiji affairs, one would assume as if Indo-Fijian journalists – like their absence from tourism brochures and promotions – do not exist in media circles as well.

Indeed, they do not. This is because of ethnic cleansing in a supposedly democratic country. It was with the intention of helping fill that gaping vacuum that I took up postgraduate media studies in Auckland.

While the Indo-Fijian editor of the Fiji Times, Vijendra Kumar, was removed by original coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka in 1987; this author – as the Indo-Fijian publisher of the Daily Post, was made redundant by the Qarase regime in 2002 for refusing to bow down to the so-called Lauan Mafia and for exposing the ills of an undeserving Qarase regime under the pseudonym of “Liu Muri”.

Another bold and fearless journalist at the Daily Post, Josephine Prasad, who was caught up in Parliament during George Speight’s 2000 coup, was unceremoniously removed from the paper by Qarase’s cousin Mesake Koroi, because She was becoming too bold in exposing the ills of Qarase regime.

Another promising Indo-Fijian journalist trained at the University of the South Pacific regional journalism school, Mithleshni Gurdayal, also found things at the family-run Daily Post frustrating so she left and now works in India.

None of the other print media, all controlled by indigenous Fijians, allowed any Indo-Fijians to rise up, as has been done in Fiji’s racist civil service under Qarase regime.

Shedding tears

When journalists from Samoa and Tonga have a field day in either Pacific Freedom Forum or other media outlets in shedding tears for a Fiji democracy that failed to deliver social justice, there was no Indo-Fijian journalist in sight to rebut the nonsense coming out from Polynesian countries which themselves are bereft of the democracy they want for Fiji.

Therefore, despite my very deep respect for Kalafi Moala, (the publisher and editor-in-chief of Taimi ‘o Tonga and the Tongan Chronicle,) his opinion and pronouncement of Fiji and Voreqe Bainimarama in Pacific Scoop, (Why Bainimarama will fail in his quest for a ‘reformed Fiji’) if left unchallenged would be an affront to those scholars who call on students of journalism like me to dig deeper.

Bainimarama has removed two very strong divisive Fijian instruments that have been the main reason and cause for the coup culture in Fiji. The two institutions for which Moala shed tears are the Great Council of Chiefs and the Methodist Church.

During Speight’s coup, 1997 constitutional architect Dr Brij Lal had the following to say of the Great Council of Chiefs, a supposedly august body:

“Formed by Sir Arthur Gordon soon after Fiji became a crown colony in 1874, it occupied an honoured place in Fijian society as the government’s and the Crown’s principal adviser on indigenous affairs. Sadly it stands today as a diminished body of dithering men and women, confused, partisan, manipulable, unable to exercise their much sought after – and much hoped for – role as the custodians not only of indigenous Fijians but also of Fiji’s broad national interests.

The chiefs have grieviously breached the trust bestowed in them by the nation. They listened to Speight’s pleas for Fijian paramountcy, but there was no place in their deliberations for the voice of a multiethnic democracy and the defence of a Constitution which they themselves had blessed just three years ago.

They have showed themselves to be parochial men and women, bereft of a broader vision, chiefs with a small ‘c’. Unelected, unrepresentative and dominated by chiefs of the east, especially from Speight’s Kubuna confederacy…”

Chiefs saluted
When Indo-Fijian statesman Justice Jai Ram Reddy had addressed this body in the 1990s, he saluted the chiefs as and for being the chiefs of all the people of Fiji, including Indo-Fijians. Unfortunately, this body failed to live up to that expectation, and Bainimarama was perhaps not entirely wrong to say that they are good for drinking home brew under a mango tree.

The chiefs, split on provincial and confederacy lines, many deeply involved in national and local politics (like Ro Teimumu Kepa), have degenerated as chiefs for their confederacy, province and villages. National interest and statesmanship, as evident in Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, escaped their blinkered gaze.

As for the Methodist Church, the biggest casualty of coups in Fiji has NOT been democracy but Christianity, as its shepherds used pulpits to promote racial hatred and used the Bible to bash the non-believers.

To have a better appreciation of Fiji’s Methodist Church, Moala should read the article on the role the Assembly of Christian Churches, led by the Methodist Church played during 2006 election to ensure Qarase’s racist regime won the supposedly democratic elections.

They breached Electoral Regulations by indulging in blatant fundamentalist election campaigning during actual election time. They put the fear of God and catastrophe (like tsunamis and floods) in people and voted for religious and indigenous superiority above democracy. So, I beg to ask the proponents of democracy, what democracy are they talking about?

As far as shedding tears for media, the Fiji Times is celebrating 140 years in Fiji – it was established in Levuka in 1869 – 10 years before Indian indentured labourers came to Fiji.

Human rights abuses

In a history of indenture by Dr Lal, The Violence of Girmit by Professor Vijay Naidu, and untold tear jerking suffering in Rajendra Prasad’s Tears in Paradise, there are numerous tales of gross human rights abuses and exploitation of Indian labourers by the colonists.

Has anybody read any cry from this supposedly revered media for defence of the human rights of ignorant and poor people who were tricked into slavery in Fiji? Is it still continuing to protect the interests of the powerful and the mighty institution?

In academic research done in 2005 on the reporting of the 2000 coup, clear bias of the paper was established where the newspaper was seen to be a proponent of elitist interests, be they commercial or chiefly.

I do not disagree with some of the things Moala has said; especially the rise of fundamentalist new Methodist Church – the “Talibanisation” of Christianity and am totally opposed to persecution of Netani Rika and other media personnel and I am totally opposed to treatment of journalists as exposed in the Amnesty International Report yesterday.

But it needs to be realised that the media in Fiji is not entirely faultless, and especially the race card element in Fiji media needs to be brought under closer scrutiny.

I have one former journalist from one Fiji press here and she has stories of how the Fijian editor picked Fijians for strategic stories and left Indo-Fijians to do insignificant stories.

The disease of racism did not spare Fiji’s newsrooms and its Fijian editors. It is interesting to see more research being done on the Fiji media and I hope that the Fiji media is capable of standing respectfully and unhurt by the escalating academic gaze and interest.

The research that has been done does not portray as holy a picture as many would have wished.

Active politician
Moala’s defence of Ro Teimumu Kepa would have been justified if she was only a chief. No, she is a fully active politician first, and the Methodist Church is the spiritual arm of Qarase’s
Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua party (SDL).

When as Minister of Education in Qarase’s cabinet, she imposed an apartheid policy under which the children of rich Fijians could gain free form seven education while destitute children of displaced Indo-Fijian farmers could not get this deserving help because of their race.

Is this the type of democracy Moala and his supporters want for Fiji?

What I sense from Moala’s article is more heat than the light – it is heavy on emotion and weak on facts.

His coming to the defence of Netani Rika in particular and other indigenous Fijians in general is commendable and even understandable. But where were these champions of media and human rights when Indo-Fijians were victimised, robbed, raped, humiliated, persecuted and blatantly discriminated against on grounds of race under a democratic Qarase government that they want back now.

Those outsiders from Fiji and removed from the environment of Fiji’s population and racial mix, and racial politics are no experts in pontificating on issues, about which they have not read widely, had not experienced first hand and hence have little understanding of.

More complex
Fiji’s issue is far wider and deeper than mere media rights, indigenous supremacy, religious freedom and customary systems.

As a former publisher of a Fiji newspaper during the turbulent Speight times and having experienced the wheeling and dealing of racial manipulation at the high places, this makes one very skeptical and questionable about the model of democracy that outsiders want to impose on Fiji.

Perhaps Moala and others pushing Fiji for democracy should heed this cry from an Indo-Fijian who abandoned his democratic Fiji for the United States:” I would rather be a dog in America than an Indo-Fijian in Fiji”

Is that the model of democracy that Moala and his media supporters want for Fiji? That is the type delivered by Qarase.

Thakur Ranjit Singh is a former publisher of Fiji’s Daily Post, a political commentator and a postgraduate student in the School of Communication Studies at AUT University. These are his personal views.








Save Page As PDF

Zemanta Pixie





Social Bookmarking



Add to: Digg
Add to: Del.icio.us
Add to: Reddit
Add to: StumbleUpon
Add to: Furl
Add to: Yahoo
Add to: Spurl
Add to: Google
Add to: Technorati
Add to: Newsvine




Thursday, December 27, 2007

NZ Duplicity-Member of Fiji I.G, allowed into NZ to see sick wife.

Pramesh Chand, the military-appointed head of Commodore Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama's interim government in Fiji, is in Auckland to tend to his sick wife. None of the members of Cdre Bainimarama's interim government have been allowed to visit New Zealand since Cdre Bainimarama seized power in a bloodless coup last December.



read more | digg story

However, the most recent travel ban was also placed on a group of Scouts representing Fiji to the annual Jamboree held in New Zealand.

New Zealand Herald's Editorial published in Dec. 22nd 2007, slammed the New Zealand Government's gross inconsistency in applying these travel sanctions.

The excerpt:

Editorial: Excluding Fijian kids an affront to common sense
5:00AM Saturday December 22, 2007

Let the children come.

The group of 10 Fijian Scouts and Guides being kept from coming to New Zealand because of someone's interpretation of the sanctions applied by this country against the military regime must be allowed to attend their jamboree.

This cannot, surely, have been a Government decision, nor even a conscious one taken by senior officials. No doubt the Fijian Scouting movement did receive an indication that applications for their charges to visit here would be problematic. How formal and how definitive was that hint?

The detail does not matter. The fact that any issue has arisen over these children attending an international jamboree breaks the Government's newly minted "Law of Common Sense".

Around 50 Fijian children will be allowed here, so presumably the 10 outcasts have relatives in the military. To use children as young as 10 to score diplomatic points against their parents is beneath all standards to which New Zealand should aspire.The sanctions against members of the regime and their families have been inconsistently applied in any case.

Bizarrely, a serving Education Minister from the Bainimarama Government has visited this country for a conference, with the blessing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its minister, Winston Peters. In that case the multilateral benefits on education throughout the Pacific were held to be more important than the bilateral relationship.

A Government minister can come, but his colleagues' kids cannot? Keeping 10 children from an international camp in Christchurch - especially Scouts and Guides seeking to become, in the words of their Scouting leader, "good citizens of the planet" - is silly, not serious. It demeans the sanctions and lessens New Zealand in the eyes of our wider Pacific neighbours.



Stuff Magazine published the slanted perspective by Dominion Post's foreign correspondent, Micheal Field. The excerpt:


Bainimarama supporter allowed into NZ
By MICHAEL FIELD - The Dominion Post | Friday, 28 December 2007

A key figure in Fiji's coup regime is in New Zealand tending his sick wife, just a week after 10 Scouts were excluded on the grounds of their relationship to the military. The military-appointed head of the Prime Minister's Office, Pramesh Chand, is in Auckland, according to Fiji media, on compassionate and humanitarian grounds after his wife became ill.

Mr Chand, the former South Pacific trade commissioner based in Auckland, assumed his key role just days after military commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama overthrew the elected government of Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase in December 2006.

An Indo-Fijian, Mr Chand has been a strong and outspoken supporter of Commodore Bainimarama, and as recently as last week was condemning New Zealand for its sanctions. News of Mr Chand's entry represents a significant departure from the rules, as his role has been as a key aide to the military, and symbolic of the Indo-Fijian support for the coup.

[Chand] told the Fiji Times he was granted a visa on compassionate and humanitarian grounds and was happy the New Zealand Government was understanding of his situation. Mr Chand said his case was a genuine one as he had to be with his wife, who was taken to hospital as an emergency case. "She was taken in, but was not admitted, and she is now recuperating at home."

[Chand] would not divulge his wife's medical condition, but said she was recovering well. Mr Chand is due to return to Fiji tomorrow. Yesterday, the Fiji Times, one of the strongest critics of the military regime, attacked New Zealand over its "flip-flop" policy, saying it had prevented Scouts' entry, yet had allowed entry to a military-appointed cabinet minister.

"New Zealand must decide once and for all whether her borders are open or closed to the interim regime."



Field's article trivializes the inconsistency factor and also introduces Pramesh Chand as an Indo-Fijian, as if that fact was central to the storyline. Furthermore, Field fallaciously adds that Chand is a symbol of Indo-Fijian support for the 2006 coup. Field's conclusion has fallen victim to the dangerous logical trap known as "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" or coincidental correlation and further erodes his integrity as an objective writer.

The excerpt of Fiji Times Editorial of Thursday Dec. 27th 2007:


Ban all or nothing

Fiji Times Thursday, December 27, 2007

NEW Zealand's travel ban on people linked to the events of December 2006 is a joke. Last week, nine scouts mere teenagers were told not to bother applying for a visa to go to New Zealand to represent the country at a jamboree. These young people were forced to bear the brunt of our neighbour's anger over their parents' involvement in the overthrow of a legally-elected government.

This newspaper does not condone the events of 2006 nor does it support the rape of democratic processes which are designed to serve every citizen of this country. At the same time, we will not be silent over the treatment of innocent children. We know of their plight merely because it is a high-profile case and involves an international event.

There must be many children and families who have faced similar censure in the 12 months since December 2006. They are unlikely to come forward because of the shame associated with the travel ban.New Zealand's diplomatic mission here will not say how many of Fiji's citizens have been refused entry to that country on the basis of their relationship to members of the military or the interim regime.

When the smart sanctions were introduced after the military overthrew Laisenia Qarase's government, the system was seen as a tool with which to hit back at soldiers and those who intended to join the regime. Since the sanctions were introduced, New Zealand has banned a group of scouts and a soccer player. The soccer player was not related to a soldier. He was the fiance of the daughter of a soldier.

At the same time, New Zealand has flung wide her doors to a minister in the interim Government. The excuse? The meeting he attended was a regional event and would benefit and develop the education system here.These are fine sentiments. But would not the same argument work in the case of the scouts?

By mixing with their peers, would they not be enriched by the experience? Would the experience not help mould them into better individuals. Now we find out that the permanent secretary in the Prime Minister's Office, Parmesh Chand, has been allowed into New Zealand. The excuse? Medical reasons.

Again, a fine sentiment, but why Mr Chand and his family and not the boy scouts or the national team goalkeeper?

New Zealand cannot continue to play flip-flop politics with Fiji and other Pacific states. If it wants to ban people involved in the events of 2006 and the interim administration, go ahead. But there can be no grey areas in the ban. It must be all or nothing. If New Zealand decides to choose who is or is not banned on a case by case basis, the ban is an exercise in hypocrisy.New Zealand must decide once and for all whether her borders are open or closed to the interim regime.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Moving Forward Like A Crab.

Two exceptional letters were published by the Fiji Sun "Letters to the Editor" column. The following are excerpts:


Justice
Last updated 10/22/2007 8:56:18 AM

I can't really disagree with Mick Beddoes contention that justice delayed in justice denied. An argument he raises in accusing, rightly or wrongly, the Fiji Human Rights Commission for not doing anything for the victims of the 2006 coup. He of course assumes that these people who he is advocating for have been denied justice and that it was indeed the commission that denied or deliberately delayed it for reasons that have not been disclosed by Beddoes. Of recent Beddoes has been commenting rather negatively on all matters pertaining to the governance of Fiji by the Interim Government.

I wish he had shown the same level of enthusiasm in criticising the governance of this country when Qarase and his cronies were rather blatantly engaging in corruption and racism. I wish he had shown the same courage in raising issues, in the relative immunity of the Parliament, in exposing corrupt practices of the Qarase government. I wish he had shown the same due diligence, that he seems to rather hypocritically show now, when the nation's coffers were be pillaged and scarce national resources and assets exploited for personal gain by Qarase and his gang of rogues.

I am equally flabbergasted why Beddoes has never raised matters of justice that were so blatantly denied to other victims of the 19987 and 2000 coups. Many lost all they had toiled for in Fiji and in fear of further persecution and in complete absence any one raising a voice for them, they left the shores of Fiji for good to live abroad, in what for many them is tantamount to 'self imposed exile'.

Where was Beddoes then? What has he done about these thousands who were so blatantly denied justice? Or does Beddoes like other self proclaimed leaders of human rights who have mushroomed so suddenly in Fiji is only an advocate on a selective basis?
Beddoes would be well advised to be equally selective about when he should open his mouth. For Beddoes it might be prudent to remain silent, for as soon as he opens his mouth the world will know how hollow and biased his human rights rhetoric is.


The following letters was in response to the SDL stalwart, Mere Samisoni's perception of the proposed People's Charter:


Move forward

We hear much these days from the interim regime on the need to "move the country forward".

But if that is really such an over-riding concern, then surely the question needs to be asked as to why the military leadership found it so unavoidably necessary to "move the country backward" in December 2006.

The SDL-led Multi-Party Cabinet (MPC) had already set itself about the task of bringing the kind of desirable changes suitable for the 21st century information civilisation.

This was well documented in the Strategic Development Plans (SDP) 2006, rolled over to 2007-2011, which incorporated much of the legitimate manifestoes of the two major parties in the MPC.

That means that a workable and legitimate system was already in place to "move the country forward" pre-coup. Whats more, it was based on market metrics, implemented through the rule of law, and achieved through the democratic process as representative of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious society.

This represents a far more legitimate and sustainable foundation for "moving the country forward" and "bringing the races together" than what the IG is trying to shove down peoples throats.

Despite this, the Military Council (MC) supported by the Fiji Labour Party (FLP), and other opportunists in the IG (MC/FLP/IG) still saw it fit to impose an illegal coup that violated those democratic and administrative processes already in place under the 1997 Constitution.

And now, the illegitimate regime is simply trying to achieve the same goals as the ousted Government, but from a far less popular and legitimate policy foundation framework, and with dictatorial style of leadership that is far less effective and popular.

Moreover, we now have the anomaly of the Peoples Charter (PI) with its Council of decision makers that renders the IG essentially redundant.

What is of concern, is the idea that the PI or what I call the Military Charter did not come from the people, it was not written by the people, there is no ownership by the people and it serves no obvious purpose for the people. That means the idea of a Military Charter is fundamentally disconnected from reality and peoples daily lives.

Moreover, the Military Charter and its dictatorial and impositional management style are incompatible with the new economic order of win-win relationships based on community human values.

Therefore, in the bigger picture, the MC is doomed from the start.

Also, at a global level, the latest trend in strategic business planning is to differentiate and segment markets along group demographics and psychographics so as to achieve better market servicing.

This marketing "best practice" is certainly transferable to the work of Government, where it can help to tailor and target policies according to specific and measurable demographic needs, values and aspirations, where these differ. Despite this, the MC/FLP/IG is still moving toward the complete opposite philosophy by embracing an obsolete 'one size fit all vision.

This just sweeps everything under the mat, including diversity of human and community values and choices, by preferring instead to manage things via an "out of sight and out of mind" approach.

How is the MC going to measure motivation, performance and success of target groups without differentiating its policy "market" for felt needs, values and special aspirations?

Mere Tuisalalo Samisoni
Lami


Apparently, the talking points issued by the SDL Headquarters was to resist and desist the People's Charter proposed by the Interim Government. Obviously, SDL's idea of movement for the nation of Fiji is akin to a crab's motion: side to side but never forward.
Back to the future
Last updated 10/22/2007 8:55:45 AM

We have heard of the saying that one becomes wiser after the event. However, Mere Samisoni's academically garbled theory and analysis of the Military Council's action and the people's charter shows that some people lose all sense of reasoning and logic if they are removed from their cushioned positions.
Being a post graduate student myself, I could not comprehend her far- fetched theories, so I feel sorry for the common Tomasi, Deepak and Hamid on Suva streets who would be scratching their heads and wondering what group demographics and psychographics mean.

She talks about transferring the latest trend in strategic business planning on differentiating and segmenting markets along group demographics and psychographics to government to achieve better market servicing, whatever that means.
She also spoke about tailoring and targeting policies according to specific and measurable demographic needs, values and aspirations, where these differ.

It is a pity she did not give this lecture to SDL caucus, and especially the chiefly minister and aunty- in- law of two existing interim Minister when she was the Education Minister. Assuming if they could understand what was lectured to them; one would assume that the country could have been saved from the doomsday that supposedly 5 December, 2006 spelt. Was this not the policy of one size fits all that she is accusing the Military Council of having now?

Qarase's blanket racist policies, based solely on race rather than needs dictated that a rich Fijian parent with a combined income of $200,000 could have free Form Seven education for their child while an evicted Indo Fijian with an income of only 2per cent of the Fijian parent still had to pay full fees under Qarase's racist policies. Where then was this bright academic who is acting holier then thought and preaching theories that common mortals like me, and many others, cannot comprehend?

Bread is a basic staple food that people would eat despite the falling economic situation of the country. Perhaps that is why Mere Samisoni could not have her finger on the pulse of Fiji's economy that was sliding down to bankruptcy. Just a basic example is sugar mills. People who could hardly maintain their vehicles and repair falling mufflers were made to run multi- million gadgets which never had preventative maintenance and capital input on a progressive scale.

No wonder, like a wrecked car in the heart of Suva City, the sugar mills are being rendered to scraps by an incompetent regime. Where were then these market servicing theories of the gold medalist graduate of SDL party?
You need not be a rocket scientist to see what was wrong with Fiji's sick economy which was exaggerated by equally sick racist policies that went against all the grains of academia.

I wonder where then were the arm chair critics and MBA graduates, masquerading as coup victims and professors from academic institutions, now coming out of woodwork and pontificating on the state of economy that a common cane cutter already knows.
Now that Australia and New Zealand has twisted Fiji's arm for another election, who will give a guarantee that this election will stick? Who says that elections are a panacea to Fiji's problems?

But my concern is, how democracy can save Fiji from a racially divisive party like SDL and how the country can be saved from academics who say so much without telling anything.


Fiji Times also published another letter responding to the Ex-Officio from Lami Open, Mere Samisoni.

Racist policies

I think I must be a masochist but I forced myself to read Mere (I will use 10 words when one will do) Samisoni's letter, of 19th October, 10 times to understand what she was saying.

In brief, the first part basically said the SDL led multi-party Cabinet was doing a fantastic job moving the country forward and the there was no need for the military takeover.

The second part was that the People's Charter was doomed for failure.

The third part interestingly says modern governments should use targeted marketing to give the different sectors of the community what they need. We have seen examples of this from the SDL. The Qoliqoli Bill: very targeted towards the indigenous community

The reconciliation Bill; again very targeted towards the indigenous community; not many Indians were going to be released from prison due to that? The list of such targeted policies is endless.

We also had the agricultural scam: you may think that only benefited the indigenous, SDL voting, rural poor. But, hold on a few rich shop owning Indians allegedly did very well. So that's okay. That was multiracial.

When you use market segmentation as a government and only put forward policies that benefit just one segment of a community and forget about the rest, then that is called a racist government. That sort of government has no place in the 21st Century.

So Mere, you have answered you own question. The Interim Government is definitely moving the country forward because amongst other things, they are trying to end racism in Fiji.

Mere Erasito
Brisbane


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Seed Newsvine

Digg!




Add to Technorati Favorites


Club Em Designs

Friday, July 20, 2007

Down Under Logic from Alexander Downer.


Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer has revealed a superior application of hypocrisy, in his latest interview reported by Radio Fiji.

This is the excerpt:


Fiji and Solomon Islands two major issues at the PFL meeting


AUSTRALIAN Foreign Minister Alexander Downer believes Fiji and Solomon Islands will be the two major issues at the Pacific Forum Leaders meeting in Tonga.

A Tongan Broadcasting Commission report carried by Pacnews says Downer told reporters in Tonga he didn’t think the Tongan situation was going to be at the forefront of the leaders' discussions.But, he said the Forum must focus on Fiji and Solomon Islands.

[Downer] said the reform process in Tonga was underway and there appeared to an emergence of consensus about where Tonga wants to go, Downer emphasised Tonga could not have foreigners come in to tell them exactly how to do this and that they had to do it themselves.


Obviously, Downer's comments seem to run against the grain, for Fiji and Solomon Island's case. If Tonga does not need foreigners to tell them how to run their monarchy, cloaked under the veneer of democracy; why can't Fiji or Solomon Islands be treated the same way.

Inextricably, these comical double standards of Australia and New Zealand, have placed their own foreign policies in the South Pacific, in an untenable position from a Melanesian perspective. It is certainly not surprising that China has been courted by Fiji and Solomon Islands, both of whom grown quite tired of this Nanny like diplomatic posture adopted by the ANZUS alliance; reflecting their dwindling influence in Melanesian regional politics.



AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Seed Newsvine

Digg!




Add to Technorati Favorites


Club Em Designs

Friday, March 02, 2007

Casting the First Stone-The Fallacy of Australian Human Rights.

Fiji Times article reports that, Australia will dispatch the reports of Human rights abuses in Fiji, to the U.N Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland. Radio New New Zealand article corroborates this news segment.
Although, Australia had appointed itself as a watch dog of Fiji affairs; Australia's own track record of human rights is far from exemplary. First that, Australia's own constitution does not have a Bill of Rights.

This 2004 podcast by Free Speech Radio News outlined the international law and human rights protection which Australia impinged on. The series of violations, had cast a looming shadow on Australia's integrity and demolished any remnants of Soft Power, the nation once wielded in the Pacific and Asia regions.

According to the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties webpage, Australia itself has a large collection of skeletons in its closet. This horrific statistic did not dent the efforts of Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer from his uncanny ability to lecture a foreign nation. Albeit, leading the effort in complicit gross violations of International Law.

Downer had threatened to report Fiji to the UNHRC and ridiculed the Fiji Human Rights Commission's Director in the process, all the while Downer and his Government wilfully dismissed the (UNHRC) United Nations Human Rights Commission's concerns of Australia's own chronic abuses; listed below. Insofar, Australia has contracted the "Holier than Thou" attitude to Human Rights and International Law.

Unfortunately, issues of Human Rights are more of rubber stamp to Alexander Downer; a stamp which gives him and the Australian Government absolute authority to prejudge the violations of human rights in other nations; whilst concealing one's own flaws in endless lectures of self centred obfuscation.

These Imperialistic behaviors are a dangerous trait, indicative of the influence from the U.S Bush administration. Behaviors like changing one's own ethical pillars, according to the prevailing winds of the day. For a layperson, it would easy to think that Australia would be a nation that leads by example. Sadly those visions of egalitarian ideals are being trampled on, ripped to shreds by the very people who preach about it.



















































































































Case
Violations
Description of Violation Australian Government Response
Toonen
17(1)
Tasmanian anti-gay laws violate
right to privacy
Legislation repealed
A
9(1) & 9(4)
mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary detention Ignored
Winata
17(1), 23 & 24(1)
Deportation of parents of Australian child is arbitrary interference
with family, and fails to protect the family unit and the rights of children
Have not been deported
Rogerson
14(3)(c)
Two years for a court to bring down judgment violates right to a speedy
trial
No response required
C
7, 9(1) & 9(4)
Returning a mentally-ill man to immigration detention is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary
detention
Not deported
Cabal & Pasini
10(1)
Holding two men together in a very small prison cell violated their
right to be treated with dignity in prison
Men left Australia voluntarily
Young
26
Federal law that discriminates against gays violates the right of everyone
to equal treatment by the law
Ignored
Baban
9(1) & 9(4)
Mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary detention Ignored
Bakhtiyari
9(1), 9(4) & 24(1)
Mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary detention and keeping children in detention for two years violates duty to protect children's rights Deported
Madafferi
10(1), 17(1), 23 & 24(1)
Returning a mentally-ill man to immigration detention violates his right to be treated with dignity in detention, deportation of father is arbitrary interference with family, and fails to protect the family unit and the rights of children Not deported
Faure
2(3)
Australia does not provide a general mechanism to challenge laws that violate human rights Pending...
Brough
10(1), 10(3), 24(1)
Holding a disabled juvenile Aboriginal man in solitary confinement, exposed
to artificial light for extended periods and deprived of his blanket and
clothes in a NSW adult prison violates his right to humane treatment &
was inappropriate for his age.
Pending...
D & E
9(1)
Mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary detention Granted temporary humanitarian visas in March 2006
Coleman
19(2)
Queensland laws restricting people from delivering non-violent speeches
in public malls are a violation of freedom of speech.
Pending...
9(1) & 9(4)
Mandatory indefinite immigration detention is arbitrary detention Pending...



Toonen v Australia (1994)

UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (4 April 1994)

Mr Toonen complained that Tasmanian laws criminalising consensual sex between adult males in private: were a violation of his right to privacy; distinguished between people on the basis of sexual activity, orientation and identity; and, meant that homosexual men in Tasmania did not enjoy equality before the law.


The UNHRC found that the Tasmanian laws were not reasonable in the circumstances and amounted to an arbitrary interference with Mr Toonen’s right to privacy under article 17(1) of the ICCPR. The Committee recommended that the laws be repealed.


In response to the Tasmanian Parliament’s refusal to repeal the offending laws, the Federal government passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act, which prohibits the making of laws that arbitrarily interfere with the sexual conduct of adults in private. In 1997 in the case of Croome v Tasmania, the High Court of Australia struck down the Tasmanian laws on the grounds that they were inconsistent with the FederalHuman Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act.





A v Australia (1997)
UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (30 April 1997)

Mr A, a Cambodian asylum seeker, arrived in Australia in 1989. He was held in mandatory immigration detention for over four years and this formed the basis of his complaint.


The UNHRC concluded that Mr A’s indefinite and prolonged detention was arbitrary: a violation of article 9(1). The Committee also determined that Australia had violated Mr A’s right to have his detention reviewed by a court: a violation of article 9(4).



In coming to its conclusions the Committee noted that detention authorised by law can still be arbitrary if it is inappropriate, unjust, unnecessary or disproportionate to the end sought – even if entry into Australia was unauthorised. Significantly, the Committee observed that review of the lawfulness of detention must include consideration of the human rights listed in the ICCPR, which is something Australian courts cannot do.


In December 1997 Australia formally rejected the Committee’s findings and refused to compensate Mr A.




Winata v Australia (2002)
UN Doc CCPR/C/72/D/930/2000 (16 August 2001)

Mr and Mrs Winata both overstayed their visas and were unlawful residents in Australia. In 1998 they unsuccessfully applied for refugee status and the Department of Immigration ordered their deportation.



Mr and Mrs Winata complained that deporting them was arbitrary and unreasonable because it would split up their family. Their thirteen year old son Barry, an Australian citizen, had lived his whole life in Australia, only spoke English and would not fit in well in Indonesia.


Noting that the Winatas had lived in Australia for 14 years, the Committee concluded that if Mr and Mrs Winata were deported, then Australia would be arbitrarily interfering with the family, in violation of article 17(1), breaching its obligations to protect families, in violation of article 23, and to protect children, in violation of article 24(1).


As of July 2002, Mr and Mrs Winata had not been deported. Their future remains uncertain.


Note: the official government response rejected the findings of the UNHRC.





Rogerson v Australia (2002)
UN Doc CCPR/C/74/D/802/1998 (15 April 2002)

Mr Rogerson is a lawyer who was tried in the Northern Territory for contempt of court. He complained that it took the court almost two years to deliver its judgment.


The UNHRC found that the delay violated Mr Rogerson’s right to be tried without undue delay (article 14(3)(c)).





C v Australia (2002)

UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (13 November 2002)

Mr C, an Iranian national, was detained as a ‘non-citizen’ in July 1992. In 1993 a psychologist recommended his release, because his mental health was deteriorating rapidly. Mr C was finally released in August 1994 with severe psychiatric problems. In 1996 he received a 3½ year prison sentence for aggravated burglary and making death threats to a relative. In 1997 the Immigration Department ordered his deportation as a criminal non-citizen. Mr C complained that his detention by Australia had triggered the mental illness which was responsible for his criminal behaviour. He also feared persecution in Iran.



The UNHRC concluded that Mr C’s mandatory immigration detention was arbitrary because it was unnecessary, there was no individual justification and there was no chance of substantive judicial review: violating articles 9(1) and 9(4).


The Committee also found Australia in violation of article 7 (‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’) because it had continued to detain Mr C even after becoming aware that his mental deterioration was the direct result of his detention. The Committee also warned Australia that, having recognised the need to protect Mr C from persecution in Iran, to deport him would be another violation of article 7.



Mr C has been released into the care of his family. A decision is expected later in 2003 on whether his refugee visa will be reinstated.




Cabal & Pasini v Australia (2003)

UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/1020/2001 (29 August 2003)

Mr Cabal and Mr Pasini were both arrested in Australia in 1998 at the request of Mexico. On 17 December 1999 both men were held together for an hour in a ‘cage’ described as ‘about the size of a telephone booth’ and so small that two people could not sit down at the same time.



Messrs Cabal and Pasini complained that in prison they were not segregated from, or treated differently to, the general prison population, despite the fact that they were accused of no crime in Australia. For technical reasons these complaints were dismissed.


However, the UNHRC concluded that holding two men in a small cell, even if only for an hour, violated their right to be treated with humanity and respect while incarcerated, violating article 10(1). The Committee recommended that the men be compensated for this violation.


Both men have now returned voluntarily to Mexico. Neither have been compensated.




Young v Australia (2003)
UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000 (12 August 2003)

In 1999 Mr Young applied for a war veteran’s dependant pension. The Federal Department of Veteran Affairs refused to consider his application because his partner of 38 years was also male. The relevant law stated that to be a ‘member of a couple’ the persons must be ‘of the opposite sex’. Mr Young complained that he was being discriminated against on the grounds of his sexual orientation.


The Committee found that Australia had denied Mr Young his right to equality before the law and equal treatment of the law, in violation of article 26 of the ICCPR. The Committee recommended that the law be changed to allow the Department to consider Mr Young’s application on its merits.


In September 2003 the Australian Senate passed a motion calling for an end to discrimination against same-sex couples in Federal law. In August 2004, the Australian Parliament passed more discriminatory laws banning same-sex marriages.





Baban v Australia (2003)

UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001 (12 August 2003)

In June 1999 Mr Baban, an Iraqi Kurd, and his infant son arrived in Australia without travel documents. Their application for refugee status was unsuccessful. In June 2001 Mr Baban and his son escaped from the Villawood Detention Centre in Sydney.


Mr Baban complained that he and his son were treated inhumanely in detention. He also complained that he feared torture and serious mistreatment if returned to Iran.


The UNHRC concluded that their detention was arbitrary and not open to judicial review: violations of articles 9(1) and 9(4).



In 2003, Mr Baban and his son were still on the run from immigration authorities.




Bakhtiyari v Australia (2003)

UN Doc CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002 (29 October 2003)

In October 1999, Mr Bakhtiyari arrived in Australia from Afghanistan on a boat as an asylum seeker. He was detained in an immigration detention centre. In May 2000 Mr Bakhtiyari was granted refugee status and relased into the community.


In January 2001 Mrs Bakhtiyari arrived in Australia by boat with their children. They were detained in an immigration detention centre. Mrs Bakhtayari was refused refugee status. Mr Bakhtayari only found out that his family was in Australia in July 2001.


In December 2002, Mr Bakhtiyari's refugee visa was cancelled on the grounds that he had lied in his application for refugee status. In January 2003, the family was reunited - in an immigration detention centre. The psychological health of the children deteriorated and they self-mutilated. UN requests to release the Bakhtiyari family from detention, while there were outstanding court cases, were rejected.


In June 2003 the Family Court of Australia ordered that the children be released from detention.



The UNHRC found that the detention of Mrs Bakhtayari and the children for over 2 years was a violation of articles 9(1) and 9(4). The violation, with respect to the children, came to an end when the Family Court ordered their release.


The UNHRC found that Australia, by keeping the children in detention for so long when it was well-documented that they were suffering in detention, failed to protect the rights of the Bakhtiyari children in violation of article 24(1).


In April 2004, the High Court overturned the decision of the Family Court to release the Bakhtiyari children. On 30 December 2004, Australia deported the Bakhtiyari family to Pakistan.




Madafferi v Australia (2004)

UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1011/2001 (26 August 2004)

Mr Madafferi, an Italian tourist in Australia, overstayed his visa, which expired in April 1990. This made him an unlawful non-citizen. In August 1990, he met and married an Australian citizen. They lived together in Australia and by 1996 they had four children.


In 1996 Mr Madafferi applied for permanent residency as the spouse of an Australian citizen. In his application he disclosed that he had served time in prison in Italy. He also disclosed that he had recently been informed that he had, in his absence, been sentenced to more prison in Italy, but that the Italian government had extinguished his sentence and cancelled an outstanding arrest warrant. The Australian Immigration Minister rejected Mr Madafferi's residency application on the grounds that he was a person of "bad character".


Mr Madafferi was sent to an immigration detention centre in Melbourne, while he challenged this decision in the courts. Mr Madafferi's mental health declined in the detention centre. At the request of the UN, Mr Madafferi was transferred to home detention. When Mr Madafferi's court challenges had all failed, immigration officials took him back to the immigration detention centre. Three months later he was committed to a psychiatric hospital.


The UNHRC found that the decision to send Mr Madafferi to the detention centre the second time, when Australia knew that Mr Madafferi had mental health problems, was a violation of article 10(1).


The UNHRC noted that the Madafferis have four minor children, that Mr Madafferi has a mental illness (partially contributed to by Australia's treatment of him) and that the family would suffer hardship if they were forced to choose between following Mr Madafferi to Italy (neither Mrs Madafferi nor the children speak Italian, and they would have to look after their sick father in a foreign country) or splitting up the family by some members remaining in Australia. The UNHRC found that if Australia deported Mr Madafferi it would be arbitrarily interfering with the family, in violation of article 17(1), breaching its obligations to protect families, in violation of article 23, and to protect children, in violation of article 24(1).



As of June 2005, Mr Madafferi was still in Australia under immigration home detention.


Note: the official government response rejected the findings of the UNHRC.




Faure v Australia (2005)

UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1036/2001 (31 October 2005)

Bernadette Faure, a 21 year old Australian citizen, had her employment benefits cancelled for two months because she breached her "Work for the Dole" agreement three times in the space of two years. This meant that she was receiving no unemployment benefits at all during that time.


Ms Faure claimed that the Work for the Dole scheme was a form of forced or compulsory labour and therefore a violation of her human rights. Ms Faure attempted to challenge the law that set up the Work for the Dole scheme, but she discovered that there was no way to do this in Australia.


The UNHRC found that, under Australia's legal system, Ms Faure was unable to challenge a law that she claimed violated her human rights. The UNHRC found that this is a violation of article 2(3), which requires that everyone has the right to challenge a violation of their human rights provided their claim is 'sufficiently well-founded to be arguable' under the ICCPR.


The UNHRC found that the Work for the Dole scheme is not a form of compulsory labour. Therefore, Australia was not in breach of article 8 of the ICCPR.





Brough v Australia (2006)

UN Doc CCPR/C/86/D/1184/2003 (27 April 2006)

In February 1999 Corey Brough, a 17 year old Aboriginal youth, was sentenced to 8 months prison for burglary and assault. In March 1999 Mr Brough was transferred to the Parklea adult prison after he participated in a riot and held a guard hostage at the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre in a protest against conditions. In Parklea, Mr Brough began to self-harm and was placed in a solitary confinement cell for 72 hours, where the artificial lights were on all the time and where he was stripped to his underwear and his blanket was taken away from him. Mr Brough suffers from a mild intellectual disability.


The UNHRC found that:
"In the circumstances, the author’s extended confinement to an isolated cell without any possibility of communication, combined with his exposure to artificial light for prolonged periods and the removal of his clothes and blanket, was not commensurate with his status as a juvenile person in a particularly vulnerable position because of his disability and his status as an Aboriginal."


The UNHRC found violations of: article 10(1), which requires that prisoners be treated humanely; article 10(3), which provides that juveniles be separated from adults in prison; and article 24(1) which requires that children be protected by society and the State without discrimination.




D & E v Australia (2006)


UN Doc CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002 (11 July 2006)

A family of Iranian asylum seekers arrived in Australia by boat in November 2000. 'D' (mother) feared returning to Iran because she had worked in the illegal adult pornographic video industry in Iran (a strict Muslim country). 'D' and 'E' (father) and their two children were kept in mandatory immigration detention until 22 January 2004.


The UNHRC confirmed that Australia's mandatory immigration detention regime is a violation of article 9(1), which guarantees the fundamental human right of liberty. Australia detained the family beyond a period that can be justified for making the necessary checks (ascertaining identity etc). The UNHRC concluded that:


"[Australia] has not demonstrated that other, less intrusive, measures could not have achieved the same end of compliance with [Australia's]immigration policies by resorting to, for example, the imposition of reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions which would take into account the family’s particular circumstances. As a result, the continuation of immigration detention for the authors, including two children, for [three years and two months], without any appropriate justification, was arbitrary and contrary to[article 9(1)]of the Covenant."




Coleman v Australia (2006)

CCPR/C/87/D/1157/2003(17 July 2006)

On 20 December 1998, Mr Coleman stood in the Townsville (Queensland) shopping mall and delivered a speech on various topics, including bills of rights, freedom of speech and land rights. He was charged, convicted and fined for 'taking part in a public address in a pedestrian mall' without a council permit. Mr Coleman refused to pay the fine.


On 29 August 1999, Mr Coleman again stood in the Townsville shopping mall (without a council permit) and delivered a speech. When police tried to remove him he sat down and refused to move. He was charged with failing to pay a fine and for obstructing police. He was arrested and held by police for five days.


The UNHRC noted that there are legitimate ground to restrict freedom of speech. The grounds are found in article 19(3) of the ICCPR. They include protecting the rights and reputations of others, and maintaining public order. The Committee noted that Mr Coleman's speech was not violent or threatening and did not pose a danger to public order. The Committee concluded that the council laws and the actions of police were disproportionate and therefore violated Mr Coleman's freedom of speech, which is a violation of article
19(2)
.



Note: the official government response rejected the findings of the UNHRC.


Postscriptum: Mr Coleman was again arrested in March 2000 in the Townsville Mall for distributing a pamphlet that described a particular police officer as 'corrupt'. The UNHRC was not asked to consider this incident. But in 2004, the High Court of Australia upheld Mr Coleman's constitutional right to freedom of political expression: see Coleman v Power [2004]HCA 39.


For more information about free speech and local councils and in shopping malls, read: Katharine Gelber, 'Political speech practice in Australia: a study in local government powers' [2005] Australian Journal of Human Rights 7.





Shafiq v Australia (2006)

CCPR/C/88/D/1324/2004 (13 November 2006)

In September 1999, Mr Shafiq arrived in Australia by boat as an asylum seeker. He fled political persecution in Bangladesh. He is stateless because Bangladesh says he is not from Bangladesh.


Mr Shafiq was refused a visa because he cannot prove who he is. Because he is stateless there is nowhere to deport him to. So he is being detained indefinitley in immigration detention. Australia will not release him into the community because it believes he will abscond.



In July 2005, as a direct result of his lengthy detention, Mr Shafiq was committed to a mental institution. The hospital in which he is receiving treatment does not have a fence and Mr Shafiq, if he desired, could escape at anytime. He has not done so.



The UNHRC confirmed that Australia's mandatory immigration detention regime is arbitrary and a violation of article9(1), which guarantees the fundamental human right of liberty. This is the sixth time the UNHRC has made this determination. Australia
continues to ignore the Committee and to violate the rights of people detained in immigration detention for lengthy periods.



The UNHRC noted that Australian courts can only decide whether a person
is being lawfully detained in accordance with the Migration Act,
without reference to fundamental human rights standards. The Committee reiterated its view that:

...the notion of “arbitrariness” must not be equated with “against the law” but be interpreted more broadly to include such elements as inappropriateness and injustice.


The Committee found a violation of article 9(4) because Australian courts cannot review Mr Shafiq's case in light of fundamental human rights.






Links


The text of the determinations of the UN Human Rights Committee is available at:

The federal Attorney-General's Department also maintains a webpage giving
the offical government line on these human rights violations. The webpage is
called: Human
Rights Communications
.




This page is based on an article that first appeared in the Human
Rights Defender
as: Michael Walton, "Are we listening to the United Nations? Australia and the UN Human Rights Committee" (2003) 12(3) Human Rights Defender 20.





Club Em Designs