12-12-07, 9:41 am
Monday was Human Rights Day — the anniversary of the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. It was also roughly one month since Australia was due to front the United Nations Committee against Torture to discuss compliance with the international Convention against Torture. Given the string of shameful betrayals of human rights carried out during Howard’s last term, it was expected to be an uncomfortable meeting for Australia’s representatives. Ultimately, the Howard Government squibbed the meeting saying it had moved into 'caretaker mode' in the lead-up to the federal elections.
Since the Coalition’s humiliating defeat, a lot has been written about where to start to wind back Howard & Co’s horrendous legislative legacy. Philip Lynch of the Human Rights Law Research Centre noted in an opinion piece in the Age newspaper (4.12.07) that Australia still doesn’t have a national charter of rights against which to measure laws, policies and practices that seek to curtail our already very circumscribed freedoms. 'A constructive dialogue about how Australia could more fully implement its obligations under international human rights law should be welcomed and not eschewed for short-term electoral gain', Philip Lynch concluded.
Such a dialogue could take place in a much more hopeful atmosphere with the election of the Rudd government. Nevertheless, in the weeks and months to come, the new federal government will be judged in turn on how it deals with the systems and the many cases left over from the Howard era. And, to nobody’s surprise, the challenges are bobbing up straight away.
Last week the head of ASIO, Paul Sullivan, rushed to the defense of two of his spooks whose behavior in the case of 'terror suspect' Izhar Ul-Haque had been roundly condemned by Supreme Court Judge Michael Adams. The agents had kidnapped and intimidated the Sydney man in ways that shocked the legal community. Sullivan believes, however, that the un-named 'B15' and 'B16' have had their reputations damaged somehow and should have been given the opportunity to explain themselves to a jury.
The agents have not been charged over the outrage. Sullivan stuck up for ASIO’s procedures while admitting the Ul-Haque case had sparked a secret internal review. 'We are in the process of learning about what is required under the law. I’m in the process of considering whether we have made adequate changes,' he said. Since 2001, over 40 pieces of 'anti-terror' legislation have been placed on the books that, taken together, have put our domestic spy agency beyond effective legal scrutiny.
ASIO was in the dock again last week in the defamation case brought by former Guantánamo detainee Mamdouh Habib against right-wing News Ltd columnist Piers Akerman. This time ASIO agent 'B1' was asked to explain the series of events that led to Habib’s 'rendition' to Egypt for interrogation under torture and finally to the US concentration camp at Guantánamo where he suffered further abuse.
The ASIO agent was present at interrogations following Habib’s abduction in Pakistan. He said that Habib was suspected of being involved in the September 11 terror attacks on the US but had no idea how.
Two female US officials believed to be CIA agents, an Australian Federal Police officer and several Pakistani agents were also present during the interrogations of Habib. 'B1' said he would have stopped Habib’s transfer to Egypt if he had known about it at the time. However, he did not identify himself as an ASIO agent to Habib or advise him of his rights. He admitted no evidence connecting Habib to terrorist activities existed prior to his abduction to Egypt. 'B1'’s self-professed concern for Habib’s safety at the time is questionable, to put it mildly.
These are the sorts of matters that no doubt would have been raised at the scuttled meeting of the UN Committee against Torture. The mood of the committee would have been frosty given the lack of progress on matters previously raised by that body.
In November 2000, it recommended that Australia address the socio-economic disadvantage underlying the staggering incarceration rate of Aboriginal Australians, which is amongst the highest in the world. Seven years later, Aboriginal people make up about 24 per cent of the prison population and rising but are only 2.4 per cent of the country’s inhabitants.
The deportation of asylum seekers to dangerous circumstances in third countries would have been discussed as would the entire system of mandatory detention. The neglect of the mentally ill in our prisons would also been of concern. The Rudd Government must not run from these issues. It should take advantage of the tremendous goodwill shown by Australian voters and act to retrieve the reputation of the country when it comes to respect for human rights.
From The Guardian
