The Government’s Press Release on Habib is worth a read: “It remains the strong view of the United States that, based on information available to it, Mr Habib had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks on or before 11 September 2001.Mr Habib has acknowledged he spent time in Afghanistan, and others there at that time claim he trained with al-Qa’ida.

The specific criminal terrorism offenses of being a member of, training with, funding or associating with a terrorist organisation such as al-Qa’ida did not exist under Australian law at the time of Mr Habib’s alleged activities. For this reason, on the evidence and advice currently available to the Government, it does not appear likely that Mr Habib can be prosecuted for his alleged activities under those Australian laws.”

So you’re guilty until proved innocent. Oh, I’m sorry, he’s guilty of retrospective laws, so he is still guilty, just not of what he was charged with and not of laws that existed of at the time. If he did have something to do with the masterminding of Sept 11 then I’ve a feeling that there is a law against that (conspiracy to murder for example).

The latest Quarterly Essay points to the fact that it is the most patriotic of us who feel shame with regards to our countries actions and I am certainly ashamed of this. If Habib were gaoled domestically and then released after proving that he was innocent he would be compensated, and should be.

So because he was illegally detained and tortured, then defamed by the insistence that he is guilty when he clearly isn’t based on the fact that he is being release – it just boggles the mind.

Andrew Bartlett has a blog. I think that’s fantastic – an incredible level of accountability and transparency which is quite refreshing in these days of ‘Honest’ John.

I’m quite tempted to list him in my links but I can’t help but feel that this would be some sort betrayal of the Greens. I’ll keep an eye on it and decide later.

This one is for you Tezza

Yay for blogs!

In a response to the article I posted here on the Work for the Dole program, Peter Dutton has seriously tried to argue that the Howard government’s “work for the dole is an integral part of the Coalition’s whole-of-government strategy to tackle unemployment and help any Australian who wants to find a job.” (My emphasis)

Moreover he argues that “The Job Network(s) intensive assistance for the long-term unemployed involves one-on-one tailored help for job seekers.” An goes on to argue that this is working.

Dutton has an obvious bias as he is the Minister for Workplace Participation, which in some senses is fair enough. Castles on the other hand has obviously has a lot to do with the unemployed due to his work for the Big Issue and I think this is a significant point at this stage.

My guess would also be that Dutton has never been unemployed and certainly isn’t exactly ‘doing it rough’ at the moment, in fact my guess is that his exposure to the unemployed is minimal.

The reason I say this is a significant point is because any who has ever deal with the Job Network – please note that this is a private, outsource company – will know they are about are useful as tits on a bull. If the Howard government did have a genuine interest in improving the job prospects of the unemployed then they wouldn’t be out sourcing to a company who, about two years ago, match a male job seeker with a female exotic dancing job.

Moreover, surely the fact the exotic dancers are on the list of possible jobs for these unemployed people is testament to the fact that the Job Network is a complete failure, and at best a recruiting agency for meaningless jobs – that is when they bother to actually do the job they are meant to be doing (which is rarely as everyone I know who has dealt with them can tell you).

In fact the impression I get, from those I know who have dealt with the Job Network, is that the company is just sitting pretty while the government keep writing the checks for them. I know of several cases where job seekers have shown up to mandatory meetings only to find the person they are meeting with fails to show up and those that they do get to deal with generally just don’t care.

So please Mr Dutton, be a little realistic and stop quoting figure that such an obvious distortion of the picture.

A great article in today’s Age by Simon Castles, a former editor of The Big Issue on the Work for the Dole Program which is as much a discrace now as it was then: “It was recently announced that the work-for-the-dole scheme would widen this year to include drug addicts and the homeless. You don’t hear much about the scheme these days, but there it is, still running. It remains the Federal Government’s major response to youth and long-term unemployment – the flagship of their mutual obligation policy….Work for the dole is a flawed and cynical program. A piece of populism masked as policy. A cruel hoax played on unemployed youth by a comfortable generation of politicians more concerned with winning the support of taxpayers than with doing anything to help the jobless. It is an odious exercise in creating scapegoats. A program designed purely to appeal to us, the employed, which fails even in its limited aims to help those without work….”

I’m also quite fond of pieces like this that remind us of fights that have long since been given up on. It is also an interesting side note to today’s announcement that unemployment figures are tiped to drop below 5%. Please remember that this figure is massively misleading and does not account for ‘under-employment’, which can be worse than unemployment, as well as several other flaws in the analysis.

Military restricts Aceh aid – Asia tsunami – www.theage.com.au: “Indonesia has banned foreign soldiers and aid workers from most of tsunami-devastated Aceh province, claiming the security risks are too great to allow free movement without specific military approval.”

These are the first signs of my suspicions about the Tsunami being exploited becoming a reality. It is however a relief to see the mainstream press reporting the fact.

“A major union has called on the federal government to block a move by a Victorian fruit board to import up to 10,000 fruit pickers from China.

The Australian Workers Union (AWU) said the Sunraysia Mallee Economic Development Board had drawn up a draft treaty with the Dali International Co-Operative Company to allow thousands of Chinese workers to pick fruit in Sunraysia, in northern Victoria.”

This is a particularly interesting move and one that has many ramifications, particularly in the context of the recent hiring of international strike breakers by several companies facing industrial action.

Moreover the demise of national boarders and the emergence of the ‘global citizen’, which is something I advocate for, is in direct conflict with my hope to protect Australian jobs, wages and conditions.

It will be interesting to see how Unions respond to this as it will become increasingly common but perhaps the most noteworthy point for me is that this should force Unions to globalise their struggle. The best way for Unions to overcome this problem is to advocate for improved conditions overseas and I hope it will lead to a re-emergence of global solidarity. If wages and conditions are good in China then there is no incentive for workers to be imported.

This idea has been met with a lot of resistance from the grass-roots of the unions as well as the senior levels which further complicates the issues. But if unions are to remain relevant, and lets face it, they are struggling, then this is where their next fight will be – Unionising the world!

A note on giving

With the Tsunami appeal many of my friends have finally realised that I work for OurCommunity* (and have done for over 4 years) thanks to the fantastic work we have done with donations (despite my absence as I’ve been on annual leave).

Working at OC has meant I’ve had to think a lot about “giving”. Certainly I have adopted the opinion that the best giving you can do is to small, grass roots organisations as they are in much greater need of the funds, the money will go further and they will generally be more effective as they don’t have the baggage of a bureaucracy, not to mention it is putting communities in control of their own destiny – something I’ve harped on here about enough.

However the Tsunami appeals are different for two key reasons, firstly it is obviously of a massive scale – far too big for any one organisation, let alone a tiny grass roots one. Secondly it is so international which further complicates the effectiveness of giving.

If I am asked who to give to for the Tsunami I invariably say give to Oxfam as they seem to do a great job and aren’t afraid to do a bit of advocacy work as well which means they don’t just give out food, they also actively try and change the situation by engaging the global community. They are also secular (many of the aid agencies are religious) which I prefer as it limits the possibility of religious discrimination which used to be fairly common place although isn’t really any more.

However, Robet Corr has drawn my attention to the fact that these big agencies are perhaps not the best way to give. In politically significant areas (Ache is the example given), the major aid agencies are required by the contacts they have with the government of the country they are helping to channel all their funds through that government or work in concert with that government. This has meant that, in the case of Ache, only those recognised by the Indonesian government (through a system of identity cards) are receiving aid. Moreover, certainly the press are not being afforded the freedoms you would reasonably expect which makes you wonder about all this talk of opening up Indonesia.

So to get around this you can give to the smaller local organisations. Corr recommends the East Timor Action Network and I know that the relevant local Friends of the Earth organisations all have people on the ground helping with relief, particularly in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. These smaller organisations seem to be able to avoid government contracts and also probably have a better ideas of local needs considering they are run by locals.

However this doesn’t over come the first two problems I mentioned above.

What will/do I do? Probably give to FoE Indonesia (WALHI), FoE Sri Lanka and Oxfam.

*Please note these comments are the opinion of Hammy Goonan, not OurCommunity

A couple of noteworthy points:

A great article by Monbiot: AlterNet: War on Iraq: Money or Nothing: “If the money they have promised to the victims of the tsunami still falls far short of the amounts required, it is partly because the contingency fund upon which they draw in times of crisis has been spent on blowing people to bits in Iraq.”

And, contrary to what I initially thought it would appear that the Earthquake that caused the Tsunami was in fact related to Global Warming:

It is no coincidence that a Richter scale 8.1 earthquake near Macquarie Island between Tasmania and Antarctica was followed just days later by the catastrophic one in the Indian Ocean off the Aceh coast. Both are on the boundary of the India-Australia tectonic plate, and shocks and stresses from the first would have contributed to the one that followed. And a factor in the Macquarie Island earthquake would have been the redistribution of load on the planet’s crust as Antarctic ice melts due to global warming. As the climate warms, and more Antarctic ice melts, the countries on the boundary of our plate – New Zealand, New Guinea, Indonesia and southern Asia – can expect more and bigger earthquakes.

I also wonder if Australia will be taking environmental refugees? What would happen if someone from Ache did arrive on a boat on Australian shores? Mandatory detention?

Finally, just a note on my politicisation of the issue and my related pessimistic attitude. I guess I’m just concerned that there is this feeling that it is inappropriate to crisis governments or others in a time of crisis, particularly when there are such open displays of generosity. The Howard government does seem to have raised the bar in terms of what is expected of Governments in these times of crisis and should be applauded for this.

There is no doubt that because of this crisis Indonesia will have to open its doors to the world and endure the scrutiny that it has largely avoided in the past, not to mention a strengthening of diplomatic ties – something I’m a great advocate of. However this strengthening also implies an increased compliance on behalf of Australia which will surely mean that the Ache resistance be crushed with the help of Australia. Yes, I do premise this comment on the idea that Ache has a legitimate claim to independence, that’s not something I’m going to go into right now. The fact of the matter is that whether or not this is the case, the human rights violations that are happening there are simply unjustifiable and Australia will, I predict, be increasingly complicit in these violations.