Illustration by Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

 

G’day. I gagged at Mark Riley’s story today, Say what you like, but don’t expect Bush to hear. Not only has Howard moved the Bush protest far away from Parliament House so George won’t see it, he’s banned the use of loudspeakers so he won’t hear it either:

The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by the US President, George Bush, and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like – just as long as they can’t be heard. Last week, the Federal Parliament’s presiding officers announced that no members of the public would be allowed into Parliament on Thursday or Friday, when the leaders deliver historic addresses to the “people’s house”. Now, organisers of an anti-war protest have been told they have been banned from using a public address system anywhere in the precinct encircling Parliament. The only spot made available for protests is at the back of Old Parliament House in Federation Mall. But the speakers must be pointed away from the new Parliament House so that no one inside, particularly the two presidents, can hear the protest speeches. The organisers will also have to find a way to carry the stage and the equipment to the site. All roads servicing the area will be closed from early Thursday morning, preventing the protesters from bringing in their buses.

It gets worse. I made inquiries after receiving this email from Bronte Germaine:

Will there be an opportunity for Australian political journalists to freely question George Bush tomorrow? While our parliament has “questions without notice”, the US relies on journalists to ask those questions. But no administration has had as few press conferences, and US journalists who have “access” play ball with the president so their “access” is not denied. While the president is in Australia he must play by our rules or clear off. If free access is denied, this must be the biggest story tomorrow, surely. If there is free access, I hope our journalists take the opportunity for some more robust questioning than “W” is used to.

George and John won’t hold a press conference, so Australian journalists won’t be allowed to ask him any questions on behalf of the Australian people. Not only that, journos have to be in Parliament by 9am and can’t leave until after Bush does, so we can’t even report the protest! If you’re at the protest, please email me a report.

What’s the point of this Bush whistlestop? Bush is so ignorant of our circumstances that he thought it was a compliment to dub us sheriff of our region, yet while he’s here he won’t see real Australians, hear them or meet them. The trip is for our ‘representatives’ to swoon before him, our businesspeople to beg him for favours and our defence people to salute him. It’s a strange free world Bush leads, the one Howard has scripted.

And Howard did it to the Thais. Bangkok reader Tony Williams writes:

Thought your readers might like to know that whilst Little Johnny is here in Bangkok for the APEC fiasco he’s allowed City Hall to close Lumpini Park (our equivalent of Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens) from 4 p.m. on his behalf so that he can have the opportunity to go jogging in the park. The closure of the entire park and the cost of the security forces required to provide the park for his sole use is absurd, but what is more disturbing is the eviction of all the Thais who use this park daily for their recreation and relaxation. If he really wants to gain political mileage, he should go jogging alongside the thousands of Thais who use Lumpini Park every day and meet real Thai people enjoying themselves and satisfying their well-being. Ah, but that would contradict the travel warning advice issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra!

They’re in league, these two, in the most radical, anti-democratic agenda I’ve observed in my lifetime, and even George’s Dad can’t stand it! (Bush Sr.’s ‘message’ to Bush Jr)

George Jnr and JW Howard have decided that real democracy doesn’t suit their corporate mates and backers (controllers?) so they’re destroying it, piece by piece. I ran my scenario by you in Howard’s roads to absolute power and Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power, and the Howard strategy for total control has become even clearer in the few months since.

And Labor? David Spratt in North Fitzroy, Victoria:

Last Friday I resigned from the Labor Party after 20 years. Simon Crean is completely dead in the water, seemingly surrounded by little more than flotsam and jetsam. Here’s what I wrote:

Simon, I can take it no longer. Iraq lies in ruins, occupied by a superpower whose strategic worldview is full spectrum dominance. The desire and right of the people of Iraq to democratically determine their own affairs is indefinitely denied. War is justified by a lie. The credibility of George Bush and Tony Blair continue to plummet, and so should that of John Howard.

And what are you, the Australian opposition leader worried about? You’re worried about offending George Bush!

In February this year, opposition to war on Iraq came from every sector of Australian society, including faith organisations, former prime ministers, most of the military chiefs of Australia’s 1991 Gulf War forces, business leaders, aid organisations, intelligence analysts and the entertainment industry. Why was the government not forced to listen and act?

The most significant factor was the weakness of the ALP. In Europe, parties of the left and the right had been swayed by public opinion, but in Australia Labor under your leadership simply went missing. For six months Labor sat on its hands and gave no support to the anti-war movement. You and Kevin Rudd prevaricated and squirmed this way and that, and did not say this war was always going to be wrong, with or without the UN Security Council. There was a roar of silence from the Labor State premiers. And then at the last moment, Simon, you said you were against the war, and became mute. At a Brisbane rally, you were booed from the stage; your opposition’s weakness had given John Howard free rein.

And now it’s all about cheer-leading George Bush. My 20-year membership of the ALP has come to an end.

I spoke at the launch of the University of Technology’s “right to know” conference last Friday night on the frustrations of dealing with democracy’s so-called watchdog, the Australian Electoral Commission, on Tony Abbott’s ‘Honest Politics’ trust. I published Julian Burnside’s despairing speech critiquing our media at Media silence abets Ruddock’s atrocities, and hope to publish the speeches of Oxfam CEO Andrew Hewett and ABC hero Quentin Dempster soon. Here is the opening remarks by Chris Nash, director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at UTS:

The PR2K conferences were established in 2001 as an annual series to explore issues in and around the Public Right to Know, with particular reference to any potential Bill of Rights in a republican constitution for Australia.

That mission may have looked a little quixotic in 2001, especially in the light of the divisive defeat of the republican referendum two years earlier. The Tampa and September 11 events of that year also gave an urgency to humanitarian, religious, ethnic and international perspectives that might have made concern with a national constitution appear rather bookish and even diversionary. Nonetheless, our first conference was a very strong one, particularly in the opening night focus on the plight of refugees.

And events since that time, especially over the last twelve months, have made it very clear that the lack of entrenched constitutional protection of civil rights in this country have left us legally exposed in these increasingly turbulent times in a way the citizens of few other liberal democracies are. Collectively these developments seriously undermine the assumptions most would have about the fundamentals of their political system.

Specifically, the ASIO Act 2003 federally and in NSW the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 are serious assaults on the freedoms to remain silent and for journalists to protect the confidentiality of sources. They go beyond the restraints imposed by comparable legislation in the UK and USA, both of which states have much greater experience of terrorism within their borders but also have constitutional protections of civil rights.

The unlimited detention of asylum-seekers challenges the protections of habeas corpus, and draws dangerous divisions between categories of people who come under the jurisdiction of Australian law.

A bedrock principle of the Westminster system of government is that a Minister is accountable for the actions of his or her department. But the politics of ‘plausible deniability’ and ministerial ignorance pursued in the ‘children overboard’ affair, and other less brutal instances, turn that principle on its head. It is now the role of senior public servants specifically not to inform the Minister or indeed Prime Minister of politically sensitive decisions they are making in his or her name, precisely so that the Minister can’t be held accountable. And of course the public servants won’t be held accountable either – to the contrary, the evidence to date is that their careers will prosper.

The constitutional convention of Ministerial responsibility has been torn up – there is no now no operative constitutional provision for the accountability of government action through ministers accept through a winner-takes-all ballot at periodic elections.

Journalists, particularly in the parliamentary press galleries, are finding it increasingly difficult to get responses from Ministers to their written questions, or to question politicians at proper press conferences in a room around a desk or podium. Rather, they’re deluged with transcripts of ministerial speeches or appearances on talkback radio, or given occasional doorstop interviews where politicians can disappear through a door when the questions get difficult.

The squeezing of the media isn’t confined to individual journalists. The national broadcasters, ABC and SBS, have come under sustained assault in the fulfilment of their responsibilities to deal with the Australian people as citizens, and not as potential consumers for the goods and services being advertised.

The ABC has suffered a cumulative cut of 25% in its real budget over the last fifteen years, under both Coalition and Labor governments. Most recently, the then Minister for Communication and the Arts, Senator Alston, and a number of rightwing commentators have floated the idea that the ABC should cease to be the national broadcaster, and become a subscriber-supported organization like the marginalised PBS network in the United States.

Truly, some of the institutional pillars of public and political life that have taken for granted for most of the period since Federation have been brought into question. But precisely who is allowed to ask the questions is also now a matter of contention. The federal government has proposed the prohibition on public comment and criticism of government policy by non-government organizations funded as charities by government. It is a truly stunning assault on freedom of speech, not to mention the rights of the disadvantaged to organise and represent themselves collectively, that would be inconceivable in the contemporary North American or European context. It underlines just how fragile the position of fundamental democratic rights is in this country without entrenched constitutional protection.

It’s all getting so obvious the mainstream media’s refusal to see it indicates that something’s stopping it. Check out Will Hutton’s piece There’s a Revolution Going On in the US. It begins:

Britain’s political class and commentators just don’t get contemporary America. They don’t understand the revolutionary nature of US conservatism and the profundity of its ambitions. They don’t understand the extraordinary self-serving venality of corporate America and its Republican allies. They don’t understand the ruthless pursuit of radical conservative interests and disregard for all others. They think, like Tony Blair, that America is having an eccentric wobble and that if George Bush is engaged with, it will sooner or later be business as usual. They should read these two books (The Great Unravelling: From Boom to Bust in Three Short Years by Paul Krugman and The Roaring Nineties by Joseph Stiglitz) and be disabused…

Krugman states a truth from which many still shrink: todays conservatives are radical revolutionaries who do not accept the legitimacy of America’s current political system and aim to subvert it. Their goals are the establishment of an American military imperium abroad, under American rather than international law, and to minimize the responsibilities of the rich and corporate America to the common weal at home. This is so breathtaking, says Krugman, that to say it risks being condemned as alarmist. Indeed, quoting Henry Kissinger, he argues it is one of the characteristics of revolutionary power that it draws just this response; it is those who counsel adaptation to circumstances who are considered balanced and sane. Consensual mainstream opinion cannot come to terms with the radicalism of the revolutionaries – it is too far outside its ambit. It seems delusional, almost hysterical, to acknowledge what is really happening.

Hutton sets out Krugman’s five rules when reporting such a regime – journos awake!:

1. Don’t assume any policy proposals make sense in terms of their stated goals

2. Do some homework to discover the real goals

3. Don’t assume the normal rules of politics apply

4. Expect a revolutionary power to respond to criticism by attacking

5. Don’t think there’s a limit to a revolutionary powers objectives

For more info on Krugman see Bush administration ignites condemning fire in columnist. For more on Joseph Stiglitz see Blowing the whistle on Dubyanomics

I recommend a close read of a wonderful open letter written by Democrat Ernest Partridge to a friend in Liberal slant. Headline: Is This the Kind of Country That You Want? A Letter to a Republican Friend. It echoes conversations happening now in Australia, little by little, partly because of the cross-party opposition to invading Iraq. Webdiary is reflecting a little of this stirring: the contributions of worried conservativeDaniel Moye, who became a Webdiary contributor after reading ‘Howard’s roads to absolute power’, are a good example.

These conversations will, I think, get deeper and more urgent. Would any of you like to have a go at a letter to a friend of different political persuasion along the lines of Ernest’s? Here’s a taste:

At no time in my memory, or yours, I suspect, has the rivalry between the two major parties been more mean-spirited and poisonous. And yet, despite our separate party affiliations, we remain close friends as we have for all the decades since high school. Moreover, I see no reason for this to change, nor, I trust, do you.

Surely you know that I have never regarded you as a fascist, just as I know that you have never thought of me as a traitor. Yet these are the kinds of labels that are routinely hurled by one fringe of our respective parties against the other.

Such mutual incivility is more than acutely unpleasant, it strikes at the foundation of our republic. Thus it falls upon cooler heads, such as ourselves, to reject the insult and abuse, and to restore the calm civic dialog and mutual respect that is the foundation of a just and secure political order.

Sadly, much more is required if we are to restore our republic to its former health and vigor. For our country and its founding political principles are gravely endangered by a radicalism that has taken control of all branches of our government as well as our mass media.

This means that it has, regretfully, taken control of the Republican Party – your party. It is thus imperative that moderates, such as yourself, take back their party.

…

Our political differences have been a constant topic of conversation between us over the years, occasionally heated, but never placing our friendship in any great peril. You see, we are both moderates. And while, in our arguments, our attention was understandably focused upon our differences, we took little notice of our common ground of commitment and belief.

You correctly describe yourself as a Conservative. I am willing to be called a liberal, despite the recent disparagement of that once honorable label. However, because of the abuse of that word, I prefer to call myself a progressive. Conventional wisdom treats conservative and liberal as opposing point of view. I prefer to see them as complementary. Thus and authentic conservative and a liberal can hold a great deal in common…

For now I must urge you to look directly and soberly upon your Party. With the aforementioned principles of conservatism firmly in your mind, ask yourself: Does this organization embody your conservative convictions? Do those public figures who so readily describe themselves as conservative authentically fit that label? Where your Party is leading our country, do you truly wish to follow?…

Face it, my friend: your party has deserted you and your fellow moderates. All worthy content has been drained from this party, and all that remains is the empty shell with the name, Republican, and the false attribution of the word conservative.

If you are to take back your party, you must paradoxically leave it for a brief season. Clearly, the moderates can not now wrest control of the party from the radicals – certainly, not before the 2004 election which, if Bush wins a second term, will solidify the radical right control of our government for another generation.

If moderate republicanism is to revive, the radicals must be repudiated and thrown out of power next year. To accomplish this, you and your fellow moderates must form an alliance with the moderate Democrats – with whom, I submit, you share a significant inventory of political ideals and policies. You differ with these Democrats primarily in name – and what’s in a name?

When I reflect upon the political landscape today, and upon the dilemma faced by moderate Republicans such as yourself, I am reminded of the closing scene in the magnificent war drama, The Bridge on the River Kwai. Col. Nicholson (Alec Guinness), the commander of the British prisoners of war, becomes so personally invested in the project of building the bridge, that he forgets that he is assisting the enemy. Seeing the explosive charges set by the Allied saboteurs to destroy the bridge, he rushes down to the river to save the bridge and, upon encountering the British and American commandos, is suddenly shocked into a recognition of his authentic loyalties and duties. My God, he says, what have I done?

So, in closing, I must ask you: Wherein is your ultimate loyalty? To your party or to your country? If you reflect soberly on what has become of your party, on the full import of the crisis facing our country, and upon you duty as a conservative and as a patriot, I am confident that you will arrive at wise and just conclusion.

***

And now, emails from Australians worried about where we’re going, and what they can, and are, doing about it.

Peter Gellatly in Canada

I would go further than Julian Burnside in Media silence abets Ruddock’s atrocities. To me, the Aussie press – including Fairfax, and especially The Age – seems entirely uninterested not only in uncomfortable issues, but particularly in providing a conduit for “outsider” voices. In this way is community debate and dissent smothered. Webdiary remains a treasured anomaly.

As to the International Criminal Court and the relevant Aussie legislation regarding crimes against humanity, I venture Julian would agree that participation/enactment by Western democracies is done on the basis of a winking “but we don’t mean us”! Yet there is the law, in black and white.

A decade or so ago, I seem to recall a British case where a citizen petitioned the courts to force the country’s Attorney General to do his job and bring prosecution. Don’t recall the outcome, save that the tactic proved somewhat effective. So a question: is there some equivalent Aussie legal provision whereby Julian et al could pressure Ministerial enforcement of the country’s laws?

***

Marilyn Shepherd in Adelaide, refugee activist

Last time I saw Julian Burnside he was delightedly on his haunches talking to Nagina, Montezar and Alamdar Bakhtiaryi, the most abused and maligned children currently in this country of ours. The kids were actually impressed by this famous man and his delight was obvious considering his part in their release.

Several times during his inaugural Don Dunstan lecture Nagina was a bit overcome, remembering her own time in the hell that is Woomera. Nagina knew she was finally safe and with friends, as I hugged her and Lowitja O’Donoghue talked to Alamdar and Montezar.

A powerful and impressive oration earned Julian a 5 minute standing ovation, richly deserved, for his commitment and passion about the treatment of refugees.

I was behind Julian in court room 5 of the Adelaide Federal Court when he argued for the release of Amin Mastipour, who had been in an isolation cell for 45 days. Mr Roder for the minister, Mr Ruddock, claimed that this nation is allowed to keep asylum seekers in any conditions we want and it would still be lawful. It seemed they were happy to lock Mr Mastipour in isolation for the term of his natural life.

His initial crime was to refuse to be strip-searched in front of his 7 year old daughter, a daughter who was subsequently stolen from him by force and trickery and deported to Iran.

Mr Mastipour spent 60 days in that cell before Justice Mansfield ordered his release to Maribynong or Villawood. Last I heard he was in Melbourne.

On Saturday I was at the airport with a group of carers and supporters, including lawyers, Afghan refugees, a Catholic priest and others as we were forced to put two wonderful boys on a plane in a vicious pantomime. These kids were 18 and 19, sent to Australia for protection and given Woomera.

St Ignatius College wanted them to stay, we wanted them to stay, but no-one at all in the department would budge. These kids had to go to the most evil place on earth, according to the US state department on Monday, stay there and try and survive for 6 weeks while DIMIA worked out return visas as students.

Alexander Downer knew the boys and he wrote a character reference, but he would not even try and stop this cruel charade. Just the week before another boy just like these two, another war orphan, was granted permanent residence. These are the orphans of Afghanistan, a nation we have helped bomb to bits.

For his treatment of the Bakhtiaryi children alone Ruddock should spend the rest of his life in prison.

We must appeal to Amanda Vanstone not to imprison new-born Mahzar at the end of the week.

To do so would be monstrous is the extreme – he is only 6 days old, already labelled as an “unlawful non-citizen” and his mum has spent 34 months today in prison even though DIMIA knew all along that Ali was in the country as a refugee. (High Court file S134/2002 – 4th February).

With the law as it stands, according to the Commonwealth Solicitor General David Bennett on 30th September in the High Court case for the kids, “the detention of children is more finite than the detention of adults because they can end it when they turn 18”.

Think about that. Mahzar is 6 days old. No-one in the media reported that remark as noteworthy, but my first thought was for Roquia’s babe, then unborn. The possibility, as it stands, is that Mahzar could spend 18 years in jail, for being born.

Also on the weekend, as you know Margo, it was the 2nd anniversary of the drowning of 146 children, 142 women and 65 men on SIEV-X. Not a bloody word in the media. Not interesting anymore, if it ever was.

***

Glenn Floyd

The Australian nation and our society has altered permanently, directly at the hand of the Prime Minister John Howard and former Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock. Both these men have profoundly subverted our nationally cherished ethical and democratic values, once fiercely held and defended in periods of great human and national challenge within our open, loving society.

There was a time when we faced overwhelming odds, by any historical measure far more overwhelming than any of those of the past three years. We both faced these challenges together as a nation and never at any time believed we would resile from our widely and deeply understood duty to address our obligations and our common belief in our nation, ourselves, our ethics and our democracy.

As a nation under these two men, we have demonstrated we no longer stand for these universal values of human integrity and dignity.

The essence of depth of these treasured values, deeply felt and abided since nationhood, are concisely enshrined in a United Nations General Assembly resolution of 2000, the momentous Millennium Declaration. This statement of world-agreed fervent belief reminds us these values are everlasting and of perpetual beauty and may never be tarnished by any national politicians anywhere at any time.

The impact of the declaration is profound, as it encapsulates what we once proudly stood for and what we have lost.

I am no longer able to accept my hitherto legally defined being as an Australian, and choose world citizenship over that of this nation. I adopt the Universal Declaration Of Humanity as the only means of ethically existing under the damaged status of this nation and society. The move is not one loss or lament, it is one of great pride and restoration in belief in humanity and our common destiny. While national dignity will be destroyed by many politicians throughout history, human dignity remains sacrosanct.

I take this stand in part because of Prime Minister John Howard’s damage to the historically honoured reputations of all Australians worldwide. This destruction of our reputation was caused by attacking and killing innocent Iraqi people after an immoral declaration of war. This heinous act was perpetrated when the disarmament of Iraq was being honourably managed with the full agreement of the Iraqi authorities and under the unanimous agreement of and at the demand of the United Nations.

This killer and butcher of innocents took this morally indefensible decision to kill in the full knowledge that he had not undertaken the paramount responsibility of his position and fully and utterly verified the spurious forged and corrupt intelligence of USA and British leaders. He is an accessory.

In addition, I am not able to rest in ethical good conscience knowing that Australia is internationally reviled as implementing a barbarous detention system declared by the United Nations as the most brutal in the democratised world. This brutality was consistently and mercilessly metered out on weak and helpless people under the barbaric, ruthless and chilling personality of former Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock. This man’s continuing actions against innocent women, children, men and families have breached the U.N. Conventions on Human Rights and Refugees.

We recognize that, in addition to our separate responsibilities to our own societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. Our politicians have a duty therefore to all the world’s people, especially the most vulnerable and, in particular, the children of the world, to whom the future belongs.

Upon the innate goodness, the innocence of and the name of Ali Ismail Abbas, the 12 year old Iraqi boy whose parents and brothers and sisters were slaughtered and who had his arms blown off by John Howard’s warring butchery, I also pledge my life tos removing John Howard and Phillip Ruddock from power. I will stand at Canberra this Thursday 23 October as a proud world citizen protesting the presence of the barbaric American warring butcher.

The Universal Declaration Of Humanity

2003 Glenn Floyd Australia

In the absolute interests of and to ethically serve the posterity of all humanity, I – Glenn Francis Floyd – do solemnly declare that I hereby fully renounce my Australian citizenship and nationalistic identity in all its forms forthwith.

I accordingly adopt the status of world citizen as defined, in spirit and intent, by the United Nations General Assembly Millennium Declaration.

I declare my future allegiance to honourably align my being as a human, my personal philosophy, my indebted service and future to the welfare of all humankind and all species of our planet Earth.

I make this declaration for the purposes of fully accepting in totality all responsibilities, rights and obligations in perpetuity bestowed upon all nation’s citizens, as paramount over my own nation’s stated and implied obligations and rights. I will no longer serve any nation over humanity.

Signed: Glenn Francis Floyd

Twentieth Day Of October 2003

***

Brian Gore

Many of us within the Catholic Justice and Peace groups have been thoroughly disgusted with the Australian Government’s attitude to the UN and its lack of adherence to the principles of International Law. This is our little protest.

Columban Mission Institute

420 Bobbin Head Road

North Turramurra NSW 2074

OPEN LETTER TO ALL ELECTED FEDERAL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

We, the undersigned organisations and individuals, are concerned at attempts to discredit and undermine the role of the United Nations as exemplified by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which was done without the endorsement of the UN.

Pope John Paul II has said that the United Nations has a more important role than ever in the reconstruction of nations after conflict and disasters. This is not so true where conflict could and should have been avoided. He also said that it was important to adhere to International Law to achieve world peace. The Pope had declared that the invasion of Iraq would be immoral and did his best to stop it.

At the reception of Letters of Credence on new ambassadors to the Vatican, the Pope said:

“Since the period of the great world conflicts, the international community has provided itself with organizations and specific legislation so that war will never break out again, which kills innocent civilian people, devastating regions and leaving wounds that take a long time to heal.”

In announcing John Paul II’s topic for the 2004 World Day of Peace recently, the Vatican said that the United Nations is “irreplaceable” as a forum for international dialogue and world peace, and “the Holy See has not stopped supporting it”. We fully endorse the words of Pope John Paul 11.

Australian Governments in the past have made significant contributions to the foundation and development of United Nations organizations. We are very concerned that the current Australian Government is contributing to the undermining of the hard won advances in human rights, recognition for which the United Nations stands.

Those who denigrate the effectiveness of the United Nations as a global peacekeeping force and decision-making body should remember that it is only as good and effective as its members want it to be. “If the UN ‘fails’, it is because governments fail,” says Margaret Reynolds, National President of the United Nations Association of Australia.

We reject totally the attempts to sideline the role of the United Nations and to manipulate and ignore International Law. Creating solutions to international problems through the United Nations, while not perfect, we believe is the most democratic way at present to building a more peaceful, sustainable world community.

The “Coalition of the Willing” ignored the UN and the majority of the international community and invaded Iraq. Now they want the UN and other nations to clean up the mess they have made. We ignore the UN at our peril.

As Church groups and individuals who work for peace and justice in Australia and the world community, we believe that we need to work together to express support for the role of the United Nations as a platform for world peace.

We as Australian voters want you our elected political leaders to uphold the commitment of previous Australian Governments to the Charter of the United Nations and to speak out against any attempts to diminish the role of the United Nations and adherence to International Law.

Yours Sincerely

Fr Brian Gore, Convenor Columban Centre for Peace Ecology and Justice

Br Shane Wood cfc, Broome Diocesan Office of Justice, Ecology and Peace

Ms Margaret Reynolds, United Nations Association of Australia

Mr John Dacey Community Education Coordinator & Mr Roger O’Halloran Executive Director, PALMS Australia

Sr Margaret Hinchey, Convenor Catholics in Coalition for Justice & Peace

Sr Patty Fawkner SGS, Director Uniya Jesuit Social Justice Centre

Ms Margaret Perkins, Chairperson Rockhampton Social Justice Action Group

Mr James McGillicuddy, Coordinator PolMin, Australian Political Ministry Network Ltd

Fr Claude Mostowik msc, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart Justice & Peace Centre

Mrs Rita Camilleri, Pax Christi Australia

Sr MaryLou Moorehead rscj, Pax Christi New South Wales

Mr Marc Purcell, Executive Officer, Catholic Commission for Justice & Peace, Melbourne

Bro Steve Cram cfc, Edmund Rice Centre, Sydney

Ms Julie Morgan, Promoter of Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation, Franciscan Friars Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei.

Sr Judith Dynan, Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, Australia

Sr Aileen Crowe fmm, NetAct, A Project of Catholic Social Justice, Welfare & Educational Agencies