Sticks & stones may break my bones but words can get you detained and deported

Just a couple more comments on the Scott Parkin bad deportment case (http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/bad-deportment.html). First, it is interesting that the US MSM press (to the extent it takes notice), zeros in on Parkin's anti-Haliburton protest (e.g., http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3357623 and http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3834280 and http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/12619310.htm; and for a particularly partisan but-where-there's-smoke beat up see http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/001287.php).


Would Haliburton have friends in high Aussie places? http://www.halliburton.com/kbr/govServ/asiaPac/integratedSecuritySolutions.jsp And see: "An article published in the Sydney Morning Herald of March 1 stated:
Halliburton has quietly put down deep roots in Australia. Its operations include hundreds of secret Defence projects, the Adelaide-to-Darwin railway and managing the Australian Grand Prix. (read more here)
Halliburton KBR's Infrastructure Divsion Global Headquarters is located in Adelaide. For more details see my article Halliburton's Adelaide" (http://adelaidenewsblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/halliburton-activist-arrested-and.html)

But the more important issue is the unfettered use of executive whim shadowed by the sacrosanct veil of national security. As the SMH editorial today says (http://www.smh.com.au/editorial/index.html):

"Mr Parkin has said he is baffled by his deportation. US officials are, too. Immigration officials in Los Angeles waved him through when he arrived back. So grave is the threat he poses to security there that the FBI has said it will take no further interest in him. In the absence of detailed charges, the suspicion is that the Australian Government is acting in secret to silence a critic simply because it can. That may be wrong, but for security's sake, the Government should explain why it is wrong. If the Government wants public support for new laws which abridge fundamental democratic rights, it must say clearly why such rights must be curtailed in cases such as Mr Parkin's.

"Terrorism now occupies the place on the political stage once held by communism. It is the bogy for all seasons. That is not to say it poses no dangers - clearly it does. But those dangers can be exaggerated. Right now our politicians are playing on the electorate's fears by trying to look the toughest on terrorism. It is a risky road to popularity. While state governments outbid each other for the doubtful distinction of having the country's toughest police powers, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Kim Beazley, has been egging on the Howard Government to match them in toughening Commonwealth laws and removing basic rights. Some in his party protest, but most are silent amid the clamour for more police and security powers. As the Parkin case shows, silence has its risks."

The Australian Government say the new laws are not unprecedented, that they are merely more or less copied from American and, more particularly, British laws. Yes, but: in Australia there is no counterbalancing consideration of restraint. The US has a bill of rights. And, as Dr Ben Saul, lecturer in the faculty of law at the University of NSW, points out (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/without-safeguards-new-laws-are-suspect/2005/09/18/1126981942350.html):

"Since the adoption of its Human Rights Act in 1998, human rights principles now permeate British law in ways unknown in Australia, not least in controlling excessive responses to terrorism. The British courts can independently supervise the impact of terrorism laws on the rights and freedoms of people in Britain, whether citizens or foreigners. For example, last year the House of Lords found that the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists was unjustifiably discriminatory because it targeted only foreigners.
Human rights law does not prevent effective responses to terrorism, since it allows rights to be limited or suspended to protect other social values, including security. Indeed, British courts have accepted their Government's view that terrorism is a serious threat which may justify temporarily suspending some human rights. At the same time, human rights law does ensure governments are held to account for restrictions they place on rights, so that they do not abuse their power under the guise of protecting security. It provides a principled framework for evaluating terrorism laws, ensuring they are strictly necessary and proportionate to the threat. In the absence of similar protections in Australia, Parliament should proceed carefully before agreeing to further terrorism laws."

Meanwhile, I and others like me will have to give very careful consideration to whether our choice of words might be considered an incite to violence or an insight to violence.