Right Now is very excited to announce our new partnership with the Human Rights Arts and Film Festival. You can now expect extensive coverage of the festival through Right Now, including reviews, interviews and Vox Pops at the festival. Listeners and readers of Right Now will also be able to receive special ticket giveaways to festival films and events.

To see our coverage of the Festival, click here.

Highlights

Under African Skies tells the controversial story of Paul Simon’s African-influenced, critically acclaimed album Graceland, and reunites him with the South African musicians who contributed to the album 25 years on. To read Sam Ryan’s review, click here.

Paul Simon reveals a sense of political naivety in "Under African Skies"

Our School is a poignant depiction of Romania’s attempt to integrate Gypsy children – otherwise known as Roma – into mainstream Romanian schools. To read Sonia Nair’s review, click here.

One of the Roma children in "Our School"

Wrinkles is a Spanish animated film that explores the move from work to a sedentary life, from being at the centre of a family and being responsible for it to being on its periphery. To read John Alizzi’s review, click here.

A still image from "Wrinkles"

Buffalo Girls is the story of two young girls, Stam and Pet, and their quest to become national Muay Thai champions. It provides a glimpse into the world of child boxing, with its heavy emotional and physical toll. To read Maya Chanthaphavong’s review, click here.

Stam receives advice between rounds in "Buffalo Girls"

Beer is Cheaper than Therapy is a documentary-style film that reveals bitter truths about the nature of war and its impact on the soldiers who advance its cause. To read Erin Handley’s review, click here.

"Never Accept Defeat" - a soldier is marked in "Beer is Cheaper than Therapy"

Five Broken Cameras tells the story of Palestinian Emad Burnat, an accidental documentarian who lives with his family in a contested area of the West Bank. To read Candice Parr’s review, click here.

A still image from "Five Broken Cameras"

The Queen has No Crown is a documentary-style film, encompassing ten years in the lives of Israeli filmmaker Tomer Heymann and his family as they deal with identity, culture, loss and, ultimately, love. To read Alexandra Kua’s review, click here.

Family takes centre stage in "The Queen has No Crown"

Board member of VEOHRC offers resignation after opposing same-sex marriage

Professor Kuravilla George has offered to resign from his position on the Board of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission after publicly opposing same-sex marriage. As a signatory to a submission from “Doctors of the Family” to a Senate Committee Inquiry, Professor George stated that the recognition of same sex marriage, would “damage the health of our nation.”

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission has released a media statement stating that Professor George’s views do not represent those of the Board or the Commission.  As well as this, it is asserted that the Commissioner was not aware of the Doctors for the Family submission until it was discovered by the media.

Calls for Victoria Police to adopt system to prevent discrimination against young African-Australians

Young people and community leaders have urged that more should be done to assist alienated African-Australian youth to prevent unrest of the type that occurred in English cities last August. In order to prevent police officers from advertently or inadvertently targeting young African-Australians, it has been suggested that Victoria Police adopt a system used by the UK police that records when and why a person is stopped.

Australians for Affordable Housing highlights failure of federal budget to address housing affordability crisis

Sarah Toohey, a representative of Australians for Affordable Housing, has asserted that by the time the major social reforms announced in the Federal budget are operating, the availability of affordable and secure rental housing will have diminished. In an article written for The Age, Toohey points out that no amount of support will allow people with a disability to live with dignity if they cannot access affordable and secure housing.

Questions raised over ASIO assessments of refugees

A woman from Sri Lanka who has been found to be a genuine refugee in Australia has been returned to Villawood detention centre with her two children following a negative security assessment from ASIO. Ranjini, a Tamil woman was taken into custody last week following the ASIO assessment, which it is believed found that her former husband was a driver for the Tamil Tigers. Ranjini is the 48^th recognised refugee given adverse security assessments leaving her and the 47 other asylum seekers with no prospect of release into the community or resettlement in another country.

Asylum seekers with adverse security assessments are left in legal limbo as they cannot access the evidence against them nor challenge the claims in court or at a tribunal. Refugee advocates have called for a review of ASIO assessments including Catherine Branson QC, President of the Human Rights Commission who has argued in a piece for The Age that “we must find solutions to the circumstances of people who have received adverse assessments. And we must find them fast. The human cost being paid make not doing so untenable.”

Those branded security threats have been involved in several suicide attempts in the past month including two Tamil asylum seekers who attempted suicide at a detention centre in Melbourne.

For an excellent analysis of the current situation for refugees with adverse security assessments see Andrew Zammit’s article Give Refugees the Right to Appeal Security Assessments on the Right Now website

Police break up Brisbane Tent Embassy protest

More then 200 police broke up an Indigenous tent embassy in Brisbane on Wednesday, arresting 30 people and dragging 80 protestors from the camp at Musgrave Park in South Brisbane. Brisbane City Council wanted the embassy site, which had been in the park since March vacated and cleared before the Paniyiri Greek Festival this weekend.

The presence of 200 police on the site has been criticised as heavy-handed by protestors. Jan Oliver who was among those supporting the tent embassy stated “it’s a police state acting against Indigenous people…it’s a continuation of the abuse of Indigenous people.” Tent embassy spokesperson Chris Moreton said the police used force to break up the protest despite assurances they would not.

Deputy Police Commissioner Ian Stewart said that deployment of more than 200 police was required to ensure the “safety of the officers, protestors and the community”.

Whittlesea Council amendments a win for the Victorian Human Rights Charter

Whittlesea Council has amended its public question time procedure following threats by disability advocate Trevor Carroll to take the council to the Federal Human Rights Commission for breaching the Victorian Human Rights Charter.

The Council’s policy for question time states that all questions must be written in English, in capital letters and will not be recorded or addressed if the author is not present.  Trevor Carroll said Whittlesea Council’s policy was “appalling and clearly discriminated against people with disabilities and access problems.”

Following the complaint a new policy will be introduced in July, providing language services for people who do not speak English and  help to those with speech and hearing impairments. Representatives will also be allowed to attend meetings on behalf of those unable to attend due to disability or age.

New Indigenous cook book aimed at closing the gap

A cookbook has been launched with the aim of closing the health gap in Indigenous communities by using traditional ingredients and techniques. The Bama Recipe Book launched on Tuesday in Mossman in North Queensland and includes recipes such as Stingray Curry. The book is aimed at reducing the high rates of disease like diabetes in indigenous communities by using traditional ingredients and getting back to cultural roots.

Mossman Community Health spokeswoman Sylvia Green said the book can make a contribution to educating people about healthy eating,  “it’s very important that we start to educate our people and stop eating processed food because that’s what’s killing us.”

International Day Against Homophobia

17 May 2012 marked the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia and was celebrated in over 60 countries world wide including Australia. 17 May marks the day in which the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Events where held across the county to celebrate the day including the Pride In Diversity Business Luncheon and Awards in Sydney with special guests Jackie Weaver and the Hon. Michael Kirby. At an event in Wyndham Cr Marcel Mahfoud said the day is about standing together as a community, “although we have come a long way in Australia, discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people still occurs.”

According to the report, 46 proven refugees are being locked up indefinitely because of adverse security assessments, which are made in a closed, non-reviewable process. Changing this situation, without ignoring legitimate security concerns, is achievable and necessary.

The right to appeal

A report released in late March by the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration Detention Network offers some solutions. In particular, it calls for people granted refugee status, but subsequently deemed security risks, to be given the right to appeal.

Each year, ASIO assesses thousands of visa applications for security risks. The principle behind this is valid: to prevent suspected spies, terrorists and other potential threats from entering the country. The decision to deny a visa is not taken lightly, and in normal circumstances protects national security without violating anybody’s human rights.

But it is a very different story when someone has been persecuted in their home country, travelled to Australia for asylum, endured mandatory detention on arrival, had their claim processed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and been found to be a genuine refugee. Deportation is untenable due to the risk of torture and death, so currently they remain detained for potentially the rest of their lives, with no right to appeal their security assessment.

The human cost

Indefinite detention is largely unprecedented in peacetime Australia and has a tremendous human cost. A Sri Lankan Tamil, who was granted refugee status in August 2011 but remained held with no apparent prospect of being released, committed suicide. A teenage Kuwaiti refugee, similarly kept detained because of an adverse assessment, has attempted suicide repeatedly. Many other refugees are currently detained indefinitely, including some with children who were born, or are growing up in, detention centres.

Former Commonwealth Ombudsman Allan Asher has noted that this is out of step with most Western democracies and characterised it as a “de facto Guantanamo Bay”.

This situation came about not through design but neglect

Political will

This situation came about not through design but neglect. No specific policy had been created to deal with the situation, and it has been sustained by the overblown rhetoric of the asylum seeker debate, where both parties fear being seen as soft. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen’s response to calls for change is to simply assert that “the Government cannot and will not compromise on matters of national security.”

However, as the Joint Select Committee’s report recommends, the Government could make the assessment process reviewable by introducing an independent appeals mechanism. This would help meet Australia’s international humanitarian obligations without compromising security.

Shadow Immigration Minister Scott Morrison’s response was to describe the recommendation as “absurd” and assert that “to expose [ASIO’s] processes to that level of inquiry and review I think would compromise how they do their job”. Yet the committee explicitly addressed this concern and made clear their proposal would do nothing of the sort.

Currently, Australian citizens have the right to challenge an adverse ASIO security assessment through the Security Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This does not involve making any intelligence public. All the proposed change would do is extend this right to non-citizens in these rare cases.

This suggestion to allow appeals is not absurd and has been made by many people well-versed in security matters. When questioned by the committee, the Inspector-General for Intelligence and Security, Vivienne Thom, expressed support for independent reviews of ASIO assessments, and pointed out that her predecessor, Bill Blick, had suggested such a system in 1999.

Legitimate security concerns can be addressed without maintaining the current system, which ignores international humanitarian obligations

Fixing the neglect

Even with a more accountable assessment process, there would still be some refugees issued with adverse assessments. As indefinite detention is not a justifiable or sustainable solution, the committee recommended the government explore options including community detention, bridging visas, control orders and electronic monitoring. This is a more difficult problem than making the assessment process reviewable, but not an insurmountable one.

Legitimate security concerns can be addressed without maintaining the current system, which ignores international humanitarian obligations. The current approach came about through policy neglect and is being maintained by political grandstanding, but the committee’s report offers a way out.

People proven to be refugees currently face the horror of indefinite detention thanks to decisions made in a closed, non-reviewable process. There are no compelling national security arguments that prevent changing this situation.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

The first exhibition, Unsafe Haven: Hazaras in Afghanistan, depicts the systematic religious and ethnic persecution of Hazara people in light of the Australian Government’s decision to reject the Hazaras’ refugee status. The second, Only From the Heart Can you Touch the Sky, invites the audience to consider the rich, elegant and peaceful culture of Afghani people who face exile and demonisation as “boat people”.

Unsafe Haven focuses on the enduring subjection of Hazara people in Afghanistan through a series of photographs taken by Afghani Abdul Karim Hekmat, who arrived in Australia as a refugee in 2001.

The images depict the aftermath of decades of war and the state of technological and infrastructural purgatory poor regions such as Bamiyan experience today.

The work draws on iconography that has come to represent our understanding of Afghanistan: a country of destroyed houses, desecrated religious monuments and graves of those massacred under the Taliban regime. Thematically, works such as “Strength with Age” and “Mode of Transport” reveal the vulnerability of the Hazara people in comparison to the harshness of their surrounding physical and political landscape.

The images depict the aftermath of decades of war and the state of technological and infrastructural purgatory poor regions such as Bamiyan experience today. Most importantly, this body of photographic work by Abdul Hekmat allows the audience to experience first-hand evidence of the continuing problems faced by Hazara people in their homeland. It compels audiences to critically question whether the Australian Government is correct in deeming Afghanistan as a “safe haven”.

In contrast, the viewer is exposed to the extraordinarily rich history and culture of Afghanistan in Only From the Heart Can you Touch the Sky. The exhibition title pays homage to the work of mystical poet Molana Jalal al-Din Rumi and reflects the interweaving of poetry throughout the carpets, collages and calligraphic mounted works in the exhibition.

Only From the Heart Can you Touch the Sky … ultimately it leaves the viewer in admiration of a complex and stunning culture that is all too often neglected.

Upon entering the gallery, the visitor is greeted with “The Tree of Life”, a stunning silk Persian carpet. The rug is symbolically infused with motifs used for centuries – the lily signifying purity, the parrot meaning protection and the tree itself representing the path from Earth to Heaven.

“Siamask (Siyah masha)” by Ali Baba Awrang, a Kabul-based calligraphic artist, depicts a swirling mass of dark text. Representative not only of the devastation of Afghanistan under Taliban rule, but also of the liberating role text played as the main form of artistic expression during a time when the creation of life-like images was dangerous.

Only From the Heart Can you Touch the Sky is an exhibition tinged with the devastation of Afghan people under the Taliban, yet ultimately it leaves the viewer in admiration of a complex and stunning culture that is all too often neglected.

Unsafe Haven: Hazaras in Afghanistan and Only From the Heart Can you Touch the Sky will run until 9 June 2012 at RMIT Gallery.

The overwhelming majority of the deaths in East Timor occurred due to starvation in a military-induced famine between 1977 and 1979. While former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam is justifiably criticised for his diplomacy in the lead-up to the Indonesian invasion, it was his successor, Malcolm Fraser, who was Prime Minister during this genocidal period. Fraser and his Government made a concerted effort to reduce support for East Timor and increase support for Indonesia, which was committing war crimes of genocidal proportions. His Government ordered the interdiction of supply boats carrying humanitarian aid from Darwin to East Timor; the surveillance and arrest of activists who tried to communicate by radio from the Northern Territory; and the denial of a visitor’s visa to José Ramos-Horta and other East Timorese independence campaigners. An Australian Parliamentarian who supported the East Timorese, Ken Fry, was targeted by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), which monitored the telecommunications, bank accounts and other activities of East Timor activists. In addition, the Criminal Investigation Division of the Commonwealth Police (forerunner to the Australian Federal Police) investigated the ACT branch of the Australia East Timor Association, of which Fry was patron.

Fraser and his Foreign Minister, Andrew Peacock, ensured that Australia became the only Western country to officially recognise Indonesia’s annexation of East Timor. While both were keen to recognise Indonesia’s sovereignty over East Timor, there was considerable opposition from the Australian public. Informed that Indonesia planned to integrate East Timor on its independence day, 17 August 1976, the Australian Government requested that Indonesia bring the date forward by one month. It stressed to the Indonesians that the Australian Parliament was scheduled to reassemble on 17 August, and any announcement on that day would embarrass the Fraser Government. Accordingly, Indonesia announced the integration on 17 July 1976, during the Australian Parliamentary recess.

Fraser’s visit to Jakarta in October 1976 presented him with a challenge; his Indonesian hosts were keen to have him state publicly that Australia supported their takeover of East Timor. Indeed, the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia informed Fraser beforehand that President Suharto would want him to speak about the East Timor question as a first priority. When Fraser arrived in Jakarta, the Speaker of the Indonesian Parliament specifically invited him to comment on East Timor. But Fraser was all too aware of the Australian electorate’s hostility to the takeover. Thus, in his public statements on East Timor he repeated that Australia’s position was well known and had been explained many times in Parliament by the Foreign Minister.

At his meeting with Suharto, Fraser asked for understanding of Australia’s difficulties in formally accepting integration, and for time to overcome these difficulties. So concerned was the Fraser Government about the Australian public’s hostility to any recognition of Indonesia’s takeover that the Department of Foreign Affairs avoided getting formal legal advice on the question of de facto recognition of the incorporation of East Timor in Indonesia. It feared getting an embarrassing answer, which would make it difficult to sustain the declared policy of the Australian Government.

By 1978, however, policymakers assessed that the political conditions would permit de facto recognition. A Cabinet paper dated 17 January 1978 recommended that the government should announce that it fully accepted the reality that East Timor was part of Indonesia and that all future government action would be based on that proposition. The Fraser Government believed that it could get away with this because the volume of letters being received by the Government about Timor had dropped substantially over the previous six months. The Government’s internal analysis showed that it was receiving only about seven letters a month, and that newspaper and television interest in the matter was declining. Consequently, on 20 January 1978, Foreign Minister Andrew Peacock announced Australia’s de facto recognition of Indonesia’s sovereignty. This was followed by de jure recognition with the opening of negotiations on the seabed boundary in the Timor Gap in February 1979.

East Timor’s Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation has since provided ample evidence to demonstrate that the Indonesian military used napalm and targeted agricultural areas and livestock in flagrant disregard of the laws of war. Illness and food shortages forced civilians to leave the hills and surrender to Indonesian forces. The surrendering population was first detained in transit camps and later dispatched to resettlement camps. Transit camps were located in close proximity to the local military bases. Their function was to identify members of the resistance and to gain intelligence on the rest of the resistance in the mountains.Torture and rape were common during the interrogation process. People identified as members of the resistance were either executed immediately or interrogated at greater length and then executed. Female relatives of resistance leaders were often made the sexual slaves of Indonesian military officers.

Torture and rape were common during the interrogation process. People identified as members of the resistance were either executed immediately or interrogated at greater length and then executed.

The transit camps were not equipped to care for the welfare of the detainees. Often they were little more than huts made from palm thatch with no toilets. In many cases, the only shelter in the camps was under trees. No medical care was available. Since the detainees’ food sources had been destroyed and they had walked for days in order to surrender, they were already in a weakened state when they arrived at the transit camps. Diseases such as cholera, diarrhoea and tuberculosis were rife in the camps, and many died as a result. Detainees were forbidden to grow or search for food themselves but were given a small amount of food on arrival. This food was often distributed after extorting family heirlooms, jewellery, traditional beads or sexual favours. In some cases, the detainees went into protein shock after eating the food, resulting in chills, fever, bronchial spasms, acute emphysema, vomiting and diarrhoea.

After a period of approximately three months (the exact duration in each camp depended on the prevailing policy there), the detainees were dispatched to resettlement camps. Sometimes detainees were not sent anywhere; the same transit camps were re-designated as resettlement camps. By late 1979, there were approximately 300,000 to 370,000 people in the camps. Once again, there were severe restrictions on movement as well as inadequate food, medicine, sanitation and shelter. The result was a famine in which about 100,000 East Timorese died.

What did the Fraser Government know about the catastrophe in East Timor? I have been seeking 37-year-old documents written by officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) about the situation in East Timor. The Archives Act 1983 (Cth) provides for the declassification of government documents after 30 years. But DFAT is refusing to make them publicly available, claiming that their release would compromise Australia’s security, defence and/or international relations. The case to declassify the documents comes before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the second half of 2012.

But DFAT is refusing to make them publicly available, claiming that their release would compromise Australia’s security, defence and/or international relations.

The documents would show in stark detail what Australia’s diplomats knew, and whether they aided and abetted the famine. We already know from other sources that Australian Ambassador Tom Critchley visited East Timor along with 10 other foreign ambassadors from 6–8 September 1978. The ambassadors were briefed that approximately 125,000 people had come down from the mountains, and that as many as a quarter of them were suffering from cholera, malaria, tuberculosis and advanced malnutrition. Ambassador Critchley reported in confidence that the visit had been carefully controlled by the Indonesian authorities, who were clearly anxious that the tragic plight of many of the refugees seen should not be blamed on their administration. Many ambassadors came away shocked by the condition of the refugees, and one ambassador said that the children in one camp reminded him of victims of an African famine.

Research has also established that other diplomats from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta visited East Timor soon afterwards: the Third Secretary visited in December 1978, the Embassy Counsellor visited from 27–29 January 1979, the Third Secretary visited again in the second half of 1979, the Defence Attache visited in January 1980, the Australian Ambassador and others, including the Embassy Counsellor, visited in May 1980. Their reports and associated documentation have not been fully declassified, although under the 30-year rule, they ought to be, along with relevant Cabinet records, records of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the records of the Department of Defence and other government agencies. In Opposition, Labor frontbencher Nicola Roxon had campaigned for open and accountable government, arguing that Commonwealth information should be protected only when there is a legitimate reason for doing so. Now, however, she is the Attorney-General, and has agreed to DFAT’s request for a certificate shielding its officials from public scrutiny and cross-examination of their claims as to why the documents should remain classified even after 35 years.

The documents would show in stark detail what Australia’s diplomats knew, and whether they aided and abetted the famine.

Under Malcolm Fraser’s Government, Australia became the only Western country to officially recognise Indonesia’s annexation of East Timor. Fraser had enormous leverage over the Suharto regime but he never exercised it. Under Suharto’s kleptocratic, rapacious administration, Indonesia was in debt; about 20 per cent of its revenue went to paying its existing debt. Furthermore, it was a regime whose internal legitimacy depended on having destroyed the Communist Party of Indonesia, which meant that the regime was unable to switch sides and start making friendly overtures to the Soviet Union. It had nowhere else to go.

The Australian Government should the release the records of all government departments that deal with the Fraser Government’s knowledge of the atrocities committed in the early years of Indonesia’s occupation.

In 2012, nearly 40 years later, public scrutiny of the historical record should not stop with the Whitlam Government.The Australian Government should the release the records of all government departments that deal with the Fraser Government’s knowledge of the atrocities committed in the early years of Indonesia’s occupation, as well as all records relating to the Fraser Government’s de facto and de jure recognition of the Indonesian take-over. Then we will know how much early warning the Australian Government had of the catastrophe, and how this influenced the political will to act in line with the Responsibility to Protect principle.

Dr Clinton Fernandes is an Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. He has written widely on the independence of East Timor, and Australian-Indonesian relations. His principal research area is international relations and strategy, and he recently took part in an international Fact-Finding Mission on the elections in Malaysia.

Ten to thirty million people have disappeared. It’s the enigma of our time, how people embedded into their families and communities can simply slip away from society’s eye into a nightmare of never ending abuse and exploitation. The trafficking of men, women and children for sexual, domestic and labor exploitation is a problem that no state is immune to.

Earlier this month Right Now attended and reviewed the Young UN women’s panel Trafficking in Melbourne: Prevention, Protection and Prosecution. We wrote about the inspiring video that opened the evening by young artist and community worker Melody Groenenboom. Melody created this film when she was still a student. Presented with a problem of overwhelming magnitude she stepped back and considered what she as an individual could do. The result is this powerful film that combines art and adovocacy in a clear yet creative way.

Melody choose to draw rather that photograph victims of trafficking. Everyday our newpapers and our laptops bombard us with images of suffering from all corners of the globe. We haven’t stopped caring, but in an effort to protect ourselves we have developed an immunity. However, every so often, something is poignant enough to break through our shield. Sometimes something as simple as a change to the medium we are used to seeing, an expressive rather that realistic technique, that opens up the emotional realm.

Melody Groenenboom currently works for children’s charity Compassion.

Federal Government announces budget

On Tuesday, the Federal Government announced its budget for 2012-2013 which included plans to scrap billions from company tax cuts and redirect money to welfare payments. The Government also announced expenditure of $1 billion towards the National Disability Insurance Scheme and $513 million to improve dental services.

The Victorian Council of Social Services has supported measures to make a fairer tax system but highlights the budget’s lack of support for single parents and its failure to address Australia’s housing affordable crisis.

The budget aims to put extra funds into encouraging parents with young children to move back into the workforce. Over four years $225 million will be set aside to help cover childcare costs so that parents can go back to work or get extra training.

George Williams highlights Australia’s hypocrisy with human rights

George Williams has expressed his opinion highlighting the damage created by Australia’s willingness to promote human rights abroad but not within Australia.

Williams uses the example of Australia’s rejection of the UN’s decision that Australia had breached its human rights obligations in regards to the decision to deport Stefan Nystrom following criminal charges despite him arriving in Australia four weeks after his birth.

Nystrom lived out his life in Australia and has no real ties elsewhere other than simply having Swedish citizenship. Deported in 2006, he now lives on the streets in a country where he does not speak the language, has no employment prospects while also suffering mental illness.

George Williams points out that this decision means that someone such as Nystrom has no remedy available when an international body finds Australia has breached its human rights responsibilities.

He also states that not only was the deportation of Nystrom “…a breach of international law, it was also inhumane. Nystrom was certainly a major problem. However, he was our problem rather than Sweden’s.”

Members of expert panel urge referendum to be delayed till after federal election

Members of the expert panel to recognize Indigenous people in the Australian Constitution say that the referendum should be post-poned till after next year’s federal election to avoid the ‘toxicity’ associated with the next federal election.

Increase in captions for deaf and people with a hearing impairment

The Australian Human Rights Commission has announced that captioning levels on subscription television will be increased over the next three years as a result of an agreement with the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA).

Commissioner Graeme Innes “Over two million Australians who are deaf or have a hearing impairment will have more choices in the programs they can watch as a result of this agreement.”

One Mile Dam community health concerns

One Mile Dam community is on the edge of the Darwin CBD and the Aboriginal Development Foundation has held a lease on the site for more than 30 years. Country Liberals planning spokesman Dave Tollner has called on the Northern Territory Government to close the community stating that it is now used by mainly non-indigenous homeless people and has become a health hazard.

Government Business leader Chris Burns feels the issue should passed along saying the Commonwealth Government is better placed to respond to Mr Tollner’s concerns.

Harsher sentencing for child sex offenders

Child sex offenders will face longer prison terms under a new approach to sentencing to be imposed by the Baillieu government.

At the Request of Attorney-General Robert Clark, the advisory body has listed 30 serious criminal offences – including six child sex charges – that would involve a minimum non-parole period, limiting the court’s discretion. However, the courts will still be able to adjust the suggested non-parole periods based on a range of sentencing principles and factors such as guilty pleas and co-operation with authorities.

Professor Arie Freiberg, chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Council has said the changes would result in greater complexity and make it likely that fewer people would plead guilty.

Patient denied opportunity to vote takes legal action

David Paulin, an involuntary patient in a psychiatric ward plans to take legal action after he was denied the opportunity to vote at the last state election.

Mr Paulin is articulate and politically engaged, his professional background includes disability advocacy and is deeply disturbed that his health status was apparently used to deny his right to vote.

Two days before the election Mr Paulin had heard on the hospital PA system that Victorian Electoral Commission staff were on site to take pre-poll votes. “I heard the announcement, and asked the nurses if I could vote – I was repeatedly ignored” Mr Paulin said.

Mr Paulin asked again on the day of the election, which would have required hospital staff to escort him to a polling booth outside the hospital, but was again ignored.

Lawyer Aaron Eidelson, who is preparing the discrimination claim said “Voting is a fundamental right, and if a psychiatric hospital can rob you of that right it is the ultimate administrative offence.”

Beth Gaze, a Melbourne University discrimination law expert has said that there is nothing in the electoral laws that would disqualify anyone in Mr Paulin’s position from voting and this denial could also be disregarding Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights.

Mabo 20 years on and former chief justice speaks out

Despite longstanding judicial convention that judges do not comment on cases they have sat, former chief justice Sir Anthony, has spoken publicly on the historic High Court Mabo judgement.

Sir Anthony was in the majority of judges who overturned 200 years of Australian common law by finding that in 1788 British sovereignty had not extinguished native title and despite the fragmented dispossession that followed, the remnants belonged to native title owners.

There was criticism that such a significant change of the law should have been left to a democratic political process. The former chief justice has said in response that “It’s better to let sleeping dogs lie than raise an issue which could cause division and controversy…the sleeping dog is the belief that Indigenous people had no title to land.”

The former chief justice believed the media played a crucial role in inciting racial intolerance stating that the media created “..an atmosphere of apprehension and fear, the notion that Indigenous people might jump over your backyard fence and stake out a claim to your land…well that was nonsense.”

Six months ago, late in 2011, witnessed a beginning of sorts for the political will.  British Prime Minister David Cameron voiced his support for marriage equality from a conservative point of view: it would aid stable relationships and in so doing aid society in general.  US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed her 1995 speech in Beijing on women’s rights with the equivalent declaration in December: “Gay rights are Human Rights”.  And two important votes were taken in Australia: one by the Queensland parliament for legal recognition of same-sex civil unions, and another by the Labor party in support of the recognition of same-sex marriage in law, after allowing its members a conscience vote.  The main rationale for the conscience vote approach was the “strongly held views on both sides”.

As the results came in, in both arenas, it was worth making an effort to hear from those politicians who voted against the proposals.  The views were strongly held, no doubt. But each reason thrown up for resisting marriage equality was a poor substitute for coherence – none were strongly founded.  Each shared the same flaws: improvised, nearsighted invocations betraying a lack of awareness of history, biology, religious diversity, and the importance of substantive justice in a complex society.  When each reason offered is thought through, its convincingness disappears.

Invoking ‘history’ and boyhood fetish

“It has always been that way since the dawn of humanity”.

This nicely encapsulates the first defence.  Ignoring the presumptuousness of the maxim, all one need do is re-apply it to see its pretense: humans have been the property of other humans since the dawn of humanity; since the dawn of humanity, women have been less than men.  The invocation of ‘history’ is no more convincing for homophobia than it would be in support of slavery or the lesser status of women in law.

However, it does make clear that the change being fought over is inevitably generational.  At the moment we are close to the mid-point between two importantly distinct generations.  The past and coming months spell the beginning of the end for an equivalence of “strongly held views”.

The members of one generation are those who spent their childhood and adolescence, and even a large portion of their adult lives, in blissful ignorance of the fact of same-sex attraction and its social suppression, and who are therefore likely to see homosexuality as “new”, and as a matter of recent “choice”.  This generation suffers from a historically-induced fiction; one that sits at the bottom of any argument from “history” or “tradition”.

The accent on choice gives rise to the question: why would some choose it?  The younger generation does not ask the “why?” question, because it makes no sense to ask it.  They realise that in a very central way same-sex attraction just is, they realise it does no objective harm, and they react to it like they react to all direct or indirect forcing of people to be what they are not.  They see it as tyranny.

The older generations do not want to let their personal Garden of Eden go.  They seek the “return” so central to delusional imaginings, and see slippery slopes closing in.  If “history” is comfort, change is upsetting.

Invoking “nature” and ape-ing biology

“Nature” is another common and equally obtuse invocation.  Women can love women, men can love men. They can form sustaining, emotional bonds.  They can engage in romantic and sexual acts.  The argument may be another way of maintaining personal childhood beliefs or spouting “obviousness”.  However, another term sometimes used may make sense of the “nature” references: “biology”.

Biology is, most minimally, good or better genetically-fashioned designs for staying alive and reproducing.  This simple “rationale” underlies the process that brought about the variety of living things that exist and have existed.  Part of that variety is the foresight, empathy and communicative ability of humans.  This allows us to live in ways that, effectively, rebel against the callous “rationale” that produced us.  It would be sadly ironic to ignore our unique abilities for the sake of arbitrarily aping “biology”.

The past and coming months spell the beginning of the end for an equivalence of “strongly held views”.

Clearly, those who invoke the term “biology” as if it offers some simplistic moral message on topics of choice are only arguing – very convincingly – that they have never bothered to read or think about the relationship between biology and morality very much.  Biological facts or commonalities are not simplistic guides to human social organisation.  We can choose the society we want in view of our evolved abilities, not the mindless, unforgiving process that gave rise to them.

The argument, in one form, is based on a fusion – a confusion – of marriage and reproduction.  Marriage is centrally an affective relationship, solemnised in law, which may or may not result in offspring.  We have to look back a few centuries to the predominance of an agrarian way of life to find otherwise.  Marriage and childbearing are no longer, as they then were, economic necessities.

How can one accept the “nature” or “biology” arguments so readily? The key is the desire to live, again, in the “garden” of childhood, and to deny anything foreign to it, to be oblivious to actual threats and to perpetuate injustice all in the name of preserving that comfort zone.

Invoking “faith” and imposing religion

Having studied and thought about religion and listened to those in a range of traditions as a main activity for years, a surprisingly common confusion is hard to miss.  This is the idea that a “secular” society is a threat to religion, rather than being the very thing that allows freedom of religion.  Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that some myopic groups and individuals confuse their freedom with a second-rate situation – one in which the religious freedom of others would be removed.  It is nothing less than to prefer one’s own comfort (conflated with divine will) to the freedoms of one’s fellow citizens.  Importantly, the religious diversity that exists around us includes a diversity of religious views about same-sex marriage.

In view of Australia’s uplifting history of religious freedom and diversity, it is inappropriate to invoke “faith” as the sole grounds for a pubic decision.  It is the unexplained imposition of a particular religion.  It may be that one is inspired by their faith, and that is fine and legitimate in public life if and when it is given rational meaning and argued for coherently.  Anything less is an arbitrary exercise of office, and one that lacks impartiality and transparency.  It should never be acceptable, and relevant officials should not be allowed to escape their embarrassment by a “respectful” public that are complicit in engendering their pious delusions.  It is not pious. It is public infidelity.

Invoking “more important issues” and divorcing justice

Finally, there’s the response of those who think politicians should not spend their time worried with the pettiness of substantive injustice, not even enough to give an honest response to the issue.  This is the moral high-ground over an abyss of some more important issue.  Forgetting what may be inferred about the sympathies – or lack of sympathy – of those who can bring themselves to dismiss the issue this easily, their alleged goal would be much better achieved by supporting the right of all consenting adults to marry.  That would end the issue immediately, leaving legislative drafters to put pen to paper, and politicians to focus on “important” things.  As long as the obstruction continues, only more time will be wasted delaying the inevitable codification in law of our emerging and irreversible consciousness as to a deep-rooted fact which is important to recognise.  For individuals who are not content to be treated as ‘lesser’, and for the moral advancement of society as a whole in transcending a childhood of one kind or another, marriage equality is an important and urgent aspiration.

… a raw and somewhat disconcerting look at life …

Since its establishment in 2007, Deadly Funny has been a competition for Indigenous comedy performers. Some of the comedians were alumni from previous competitions – Stanford was Deadly Funny’s inaugural winner, Kropinyeri took the title in 2008, and Savage won last year’s Grand Final. Each artist performed for around 10 minutes, interspersed by the extraordinarily charismatic Choolburra, whose charm and wit was the string that tied seven extremely different acts together.

Fahey, who was also performing as part of the two-man show “Figments and Fragments” at the comedy festival, presented a raw and somewhat disconcerting look at life, thematising his Aboriginality, masculinity and role as a father.

… prior to 1967, Indigenous Australians were not considered to be human beings, but were thought of as equivalent to “flora and fauna” …

Wymarra, a radio host from Queensland, made his rather proper, British-sounding accent (the result of attending a Catholic boarding school) a focus of his performance. He joked animatedly about how his voice has caused people to doubt the genuineness of his Aboriginal identity.

Bolton, whose performance at Deadly Funny was only his second time performing stand-up (not that you’d know it), reminded us all that prior to 1967, Indigenous Australians were not considered to be human beings, but were thought of as equivalent to “flora and fauna” under the Flora and Fauna Act. He laughed that Indigenous peoples’ custom of impersonating animals was clearly misinterpreted by white people.

… Campbell also illuminated particular issues of (under)privilege and desire, and of things that are different between groups and things that are not.

Stanford spoke of the challenges of early motherhood (having just had a baby) and getting older. She joked about her light skin – what she called having “been colonised on a cellular level”.

Campbell, whose debut to stand-up was fantastically acerbic, was the least overtly political. He also didn’t seem to have an act as such, but rather a story that seemed completely true – the narrative was so refreshingly genuine that each member of the audience seemed gripped by his tale of wagging school with his friends (aka “minions”, as the story would have it) and being chased around town by a mean teacher in a white van. Without trying to, Campbell also illuminated particular issues of (under)privilege and desire, and of things that are different between groups and things that are not.

Kropinyeri … drew out a deep problem in contemporary Australian society: of perpetual action for Indigenous communities, without consultation with them.

Kropinyeri, a huge talent with plenty of comedic experience (and whose show, “Guess Who” was also presented at the comedy festival), boomed onstage and gave a very entertaining impersonation of a range of Aunties, Uncles and white folks. With his particular talent for physical comedy, and a feeling of love and respect (as opposed to mockery) that seems to come from his impersonations, he is a fantastic performer. He explained that in Indigenous culture, “deadly” means wicked, cool, or awesome. He drew this into hilarious exposition through a story of a local Queensland council that had received half a million dollars in order to fund an Indigenous anti-drug campaign. The council took the money, but (of course) failed to consult with the Indigenous community and produced television advertisements as well as posters which were plastered all over town that were adorned with the statement “Drugs are DEADLY”. Whether true or not, this moment in his show drew out a deep problem in contemporary Australian society: of perpetual action for Indigenous communities, without consultation with them.

… a fascinating similarity between a few of the comedians were their discussions of their Indigeneity being challenged …

The clear star in the line-up, however, was Tristan Savage. His deadpan presentation as a “government employee” attempting to instruct the audience on the fundamentals of racism, which was followed by a catchy song called “If I was a White Man”, detailing all the fabulous adventures and choices that would have been available to him if he was, well, a white man, was by far the best piece of the showcase. Savage drew child-like diagrams that illustrated the absurdity of race and racism in Australia and beyond. The crowd’s reaction to his short set seemed to indicate that, in my opinion, we were witnessing a star in the making. His discerning eye for paradox and incongruity were evident in the few moments he had on-stage, and I look forward to seeing more from him in the future.

There is often an impulse in mainstream, “white”, Australian society to collapse or erase the differences between Indigenous peoples …

It was the differences between each performer that made the showcase so successful. Nevertheless, a fascinating similarity between a few of the comedians were their discussions of their Indigeneity being challenged – whether due to voice or skin colour. For me, this reiterated the crucial (though under-recognised) fact that race isn’t in the colour of your skin or the way you speak, whilst also drawing out that our society’s obsession with such notions of race is a an over-simplification, and a destructive one at that.

What was also wonderfully evidenced by the array of performances was the ever-important to acknowledge – though seldom truly internalised – understanding of race as an aspect of identity, not identity in its entirety. There is often an impulse in mainstream, “white”, Australian society to collapse or erase the differences between Indigenous peoples, as though motherhood, fatherhood, angst, confusion, love and anger are not felt in the same way or with the same depth by “Others”. Comedy such as that presented by the performers at Deadly Funny questions such absurd and tired notions, hyperbolising stereotypes in order to illuminate their absurdity. Ultimately, such an exercise relies upon the audience to be truly transgressive – if they don’t look at themselves, then comedic expressions of stereotypes can serve to reiterate those stereotypes (thus serving the opposite purpose they are intended for).

Good comedy makes you laugh or smile. Fantastic comedy makes you think and laugh and smile. Truly spectacular comedy does all the above, but most interestingly and disconcertingly, makes you feel a tiny bit uncomfortable. Deadly Funny had a lot of good comedy, a bit of fantastic comedy, and just enough spectacular comedy to make me – and, I hope, others in the audience – wonder about the nature of race, and the possibilities for truly accepting and moving beyond the forms of it that have maintained oppression and division in Australian society. There was no real satisfaction at the end of the showcase, and nor should there have been. There is, after all, a long way to go. Comedy may just have a special place in moving us in the right direction.

Mathew Kenneally reminisces about what compelled him to follow the trajectory of political comedians before him. As an 18 year old, he was inspired by his political comedian uncle – none other than the famed Rod Quantock.

“I was watching him do stand-up about Jeff Kennett and it was probably one of the best shows that I’ve ever seen. I found the severity of the mockery and the incisive nature of his wit inspiring,” Kenneally says.

Quantock may have compelled Kenneally to explore political style comedy but Kenneally’s high school bullies cemented his love for the protection of all human rights, those of asylum seekers in particular.

“I was quite unhappy in high school where I grew up in New South Wales. The high school bullies didn’t like asylum seekers. If my bullies didn’t like asylum seekers, I decided that I would,” Kenneally says with a chuckle.

“My support for human rights is a manifestation of my anger at these bullies. Every time I helped a refugee into the country, I thought back to the bullies at school.”

“My support for human rights is a manifestation of my anger at these bullies. Every time I helped a refugee into the country, I thought back to the bullies at school.”

Kenneally is the co-founder of Political Asylum, a live political comedy group that delivers a news-based stand-up show on the second Sunday of every month at the much loved watering-hole, the Brunswick Green in Melbourne.

He hosted Political Asylum’s show at the 2012 Melbourne International Comedy Festival – going by the new moniker “Late Night Riot” – that featured Political Asylum stalwarts such as Scott Abbot, Nazeem Hussain and Aamer Rahman as well as special guests, from Charlie Pickering and DeAnne Smith to Stella Young and Mark Thomas. Quantock also made special cameo appearances at this year’s Political Asylum’s Late Night Riot show.

Rife with clever musings on social issues, observational humour and wry commentary on Australia’s political framework, comedians on Late Night Riot made light of Australia’s flawed political system to guffaws from the crowd and rave reviews from critics (Click here and here to read a few of the reviews)

Abbot, an integral member of Political Asylum, heard of Kenneally after participating in Triple J Raw Comedy in 2009 and tracked him down a few months later at a comedy night in Glebe, Sydney. After meeting Kenneally, Abbot slowly “weasled his way into becoming a regular” comedian for Political Asylum.

Unlike Kenneally, who started his foray into comedy at an early age, Abbot booked his first open mic spot at the age of 26 – a few weeks after reading American stand-up comedian and social critic Bill Hicks’ book Love All The People.

“I’d always loved stand-up but I’d never done it, and didn’t know where to start. In this book, I read all his sets on issues like religion, the gulf war, drugs, racism and so forth. It opened my eyes to the fact that there were people out there who did stand-up comedy on these topics and I straight away knew that was what I wanted to do.”

Kenneally and Abbot both hail from an emerging breed of political satire comedians who weave human rights issues into their stand-up shows without compromising on humour.

Kenneally and Abbot both hail from an emerging breed of political satire comedians who weave human rights issues into their stand-up shows without compromising on humour.

Exploration of human rights issues such as refugees, euthanasia, racism, climate change and gay marriage feature prominently in Kenneally and Abbot’s stand up shows. Unlike traditional comics who only occasionally deal with such sensitive issues, both Kenneally and Abbot tread the delicate path between making light of an issue and going too far.

Although Abbot believes there are no topics that he should refrain from as a comedian, his basic rule is that “it has to be funny”.

“I have to remind myself that people only want to hear my opinions because they make them laugh.”

“The best jokes are the ones that explore dark issues in a way that is clever and non-offensive. Each issue has so many angles you can look at – from public reaction, media coverage and policy to political posturing and religious underpinnings. Any of which can be mined for humour.”

This is not to say that political comedy is without its challenges. Abbot says comedians have to be careful to not make a gag about an issue they feel passionately about without punctuating the gag with a punchline.

…comedians have to be careful to not make a gag about an issue they feel passionately about without punctuating the gag with a punchline.

“That’s the catch, you have a massive amount of latitude to talk about whatever you want, but you have to do it with jokes, as your passion for a topic has no bearing on how many jokes you have on it,” Abbot says.

“It’s a trap that all political comics can fall into when they really believe in something – you can try and force out a set with no punchlines, and it ends up as more of an angry rant.”

Kenneally echoes Abbot’s thoughts and says a political comedian has to approach an issue in a certain way to make an audience laugh without going too far.

“With comedy and human rights, you mock the absurdities of the positions some people hold but you’re not laughing at the existence of prejudices and discrimination.”

“Rarely will the audience enjoy a white middle class guy making fun of another person’s suffering. I can make jokes from the attitudes of people towards issues such as racism and euthanasia but I can’t make a direct joke about the victims of tragedy and suffering.”

Kenneally says he is always careful that the point he makes in his stand-up is on the moral high ground and morally defensible.

“You can make the audience uncomfortable but you have to be able to bring them back. Why are you being offensive and nasty and shocking without reason? There has to be a point to what you’re saying.”

As a part-time criminal lawyer and political comedian, Kenneally exerts considerable influence in the public discussion of human rights but is wary of the effect he has on changing people’s mindsets.

“The effect of what I do is impossible to measure. I do believe it is worthwhile to put my views on human rights out there but the reality with humour is that it’s pretty hard to convince someone to do something while being funny.”

“The effect of what I do is impossible to measure. I do believe it is worthwhile to put my views on human rights out there but the reality with humour is that it’s pretty hard to convince someone to do something while being funny.”

“I try not to dwell on comedy as a tool. I just talk about things I care about and have fun.”

Like Kenneally, Abbot is realistic about the capacity of comedy to be a harbinger of change but is always emboldened when a gag about a particular human rights issue elicits a laugh.

“My theory is that laughter is an automatic, unconscious response and all jokes, no matter how tenuous, must contain some tiny grain of truth,” Abbot says.

“By laughing, people are subconsciously acknowledging that grain. If I can frame a joke in a certain way so that someone who is against gay marriage can laugh at a pro-gay marriage joke, fantastic.”

“I’m not saying I have proved my position but only that when I frame the issues in that specific way, by laughing, they have unconsciously acknowledged something from my perspective.”

Political comedians such as Kenneally and Abbot are not the only comedians to use their clout to promote awareness of human rights issues. In commemoration of National Youth Week from 13 – 22 April, 16 local comedians – including Wil Anderson, Claire Hooper, Geraldine Hickey, Hannah Gadsby, Justin Hamilton and Asher Treleaven – shared their stories in support of the anti-homophobia campaign, “It Gets Better”.

Australia’s comedy landscape acts as a platform for like-minded comedians such as Kenneally and Abbot to merge their love for humour with an astute awareness of the human rights issues that underpin the very fabric of our society. While they are not necessarily out to change the world, their comedy shows are gradually eroding the entrenched prejudices and discriminations that lie dormant in our society. One laugh at a time.