Censorship in Australia involves a defined government system, open and accountable. But suddenly we have booksellers withdrawing books from sale because of religious objection. Mary Walsh explains why this type of warped censorship is fundamentally wrong.

Neither newspapers nor religions should become the new censors

The Australian Jewish News Melbourne praised itself for becoming a national censor in a recent article (7 May 2010, p3): AJN probe prompts pulling of hate books.

The article informs readers that its lobbying has resulted in a number of virulently anti-Semitic titles being withdrawn from booksellers’ websites, following investigation by the AJN.

It concerns me greatly that books are being withdrawn from bookseller company websites without any censorship guidelines being independently assessed by the government body whose role it is to censor what readers may have access to…if they choose.

We have a system in Australia for deciding what is unsuitable for public sale:  the system does not include publishers or booksellers buckling under pressure from any individual newspaper, religious, or other group.

Apparently The International Jew by Henry Ford states: “Whichever way you turn to trace the harmful streams of influence that flow through society, you come across a group of Jews”.  That sentiment sounds very harsh if it is what Henry Ford wrote; however the system of censorship in Australia should never become one where individual religious organisations can impose their particular values on companies.

Both the Bible and the New Testament could qualify for withdrawal from public sale if the issue is that that some material offends any one section of society.

I am concerned that Borders, Angus and Robertson and Dymocks have all been persuaded to take books off the shelf that had obviously passed Australian censorships laws because a group of religious people thought the writing offensive.  While the quoted passages are not for the mainstream reader, I would remind those who care about civil liberties that is not the role of religious organisations to dictate to us – or to tell booksellers – what we should be able to read.

Governments do that already! I cried when I watched a banned book being burned on a bonfire just a few years ago in front of Canberra’s Parliament House: The Peaceful Pill Handbook was going up in flames, at the hand of its authors, because it had been banned by the government censor.  I felt then we were living under the regime of Nazi Germany and I feel like that again today as I read of this unofficial censorship by one religious group.

Dymocks buying manager Sophie Groom was quoted as assuring interested parties that they will remove the “offending” titles within “the next two business days”…. Brony Lew, general counsel for Redgroup Retail – the parent company of Borders and Angus & Robertson – also confirmed that the publications were being pulled, namely The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The International Jew. According to the AJN article, these two were among “a number of virulently anti Semitic” titles. “The swift action taken by the retailers was welcomed by community leaders,” AJN readers are told.

The really bad news for readers in general is that those three book sellers have the market cornered and so we have effective general censorship protecting Jewish interests at the expense of the rest of us.

I don’t want to read any of the books mentioned and I think they could be quite hateful, but the manner with which they are being withdrawn is wrong!! Wrong! Wrong!

I have news for people such as the President of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, John Searle, who “believes it is this type of material that leads to ongoing problems of vilification and racism within our community.”

It’s not, you know, Mr Searle. The real issue is about freedom of choice for the individual: I could imagine that many people reading those books would be drawn to the plight of the Jewish people because of the language used in some passages.

Banning books, or banning religious cartoons, is not the way to go. Banning only ensures that antagonistic views are aired in underground movements, because some individuals are attracted to the word  ‘banned’ in front of any product.

Censorship – if there is to be any at all – should be the province of government by open, public processes, not achieved by religious or fanatic pressure behind the scenes.

– by Mary Walsh, CLA member, Carnegie, Victoria

The area of 'racial vilification' is fraught with making decisions on difficult nuances of free speech and individual and group rights. What's important, Briant Tennant says, is that those responsible for anti-discrimination laws should not themselves discriminate against people.

Eliminate discrimination

Editor, West Australian: Responding to your report "race slurs should be penalised" by Kim Macdonald TWA, p6, 6 April 2010.

The West Australian Equal Opportunity Commissioner Yvonne Henderson wants more powers to penalise people who make what she considers negative comments against minority groups or race. She refers to a workplace claim, a particular race or ethnic group was, for example, "lazy" or prone to going "walkabout". "The groups which create those bumper stickers which call for all Asians to leave Australia can't be punished under the current laws" Commissioner Henderson said. "People can't lodge a complaint about it and we can't investigate because it is not considered extreme enough under the current laws."

The fact that these suggestions have gone through the State Parliament but have been rejected by the Legislative Council, which considers these suggestions unnecessary in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion. So State Parliament does not consider it necessary to change the law.

I would like Commissioner Henderson to address her own backyard, where I've witnessed - in the discrimination tribunal - discrimination - two poor people. One of them, the one who made the complaint against the other for racial discrimination, got a lawyer through Legal Aid. As the general rule, the defendant is refused Legal Aid, because Legal Aid hasn't got unlimited funds to defend both.

In the case I observed, I pointed out to the judge in open session how uneven the discrimination tribunal is. Thank goodness he had no hesitation in throwing out the unfounded claim against the undefended accused. Commissioner Henderson, I call on you to eliminate such discrimination in your tribunals.

Brian G Tennant
Human Rights Campaigner
Member of Civil Liberties Australia
April 2010

Defendants - high profile or low, colourful or drab, poor or rich - do not deserve to face huge legal bills when the government accusers get its wrong and they are proved innocent by a court. In magistrates' courts in WA, acquitted defendants don't pay costs, so why not the same system in superior courts, Brian Tennant says.

Reform needed in WA courts

Editor, West Australian Sir: I respond to your report "Kizon Vows revenge" p1-10+11 TWA 26 March.

The fact that His Honour Judge Wisbey threw out over 90% of the charges against John Kizon and Nigel Mansfield is a strong reason for the defendants to seek reimbursement for all costs plus compensation for pain and suffering they suffered over the past eight years...and, particularly, for the two-month District Court trial, which ended in total acquittal.

Does this trial indicate the need to reintroduce preliminary hearings, abolished by the previous State Government. A preliminary hearing before a competent magistrate could have saved millions of dollars for the defendants (whose assets were frozen for many years) and the Commonwealth Government.

I must congratulate the legal team of both Mr Mansfield and Mr Kizon for their success in convincing a District Court Judge to acquit the pair on all but four of the charges - on which Mr Mansfield was acquitted by the jury after just over one hour of deliberation.

The Defendants Cost Act is aimed at reimbursing costs to successful defendants in the Magistrates courts, and it does not discriminate between rich or poor. Hence Mr Mansfield and Mr Kizon - successful business men in their own right - would have benefited in having their costs reimbursed if the Defendants Cost Act was extended to judge and jury trials in superior courts.

In light of this extraordinary case, I call on the WA Government and the State opposition for bipartisan support to extend the Defendants Cost Act to the superior courts so that justice is not denied to successful defendants, poor or rich; after all, we are in an affluent society where the State of WA is booming, which makes this reform feasible.

Brian G Tennant
Human Rights Campaigner
Member of Civil Liberties Australia

Britain investigated the "use" of a dozen of its passports in the assassination of Mahmud al-Mabhuh in Dubai. Their investigation determined that Israeli security services were responsible for cloning those passports - passports taken from their owners by Israeli immigration officers or other officials for additional checking lasting about 20 minutes.

Along with public rebukes and reprimands, charging Israel with "profound disregard for the sovereignty of the UK," Britain has expelled an Israeli "diplomat" for the offence.

Four Australian passports were "used" in the assassination; four Australians had their identities stolen. Australians await the results of our investigation and our response. I travel to Israel frequently. I have been subject to "additional checking" on numerous occasions.

What is Australia doing to protect me and all Australians from identity theft?


Judy Bamberger, CLA member, O'Connor ACT

Victoria is one of the more enlightened states in looking after Indigenous people...but still the statistics are appalling, as this analysis by Keith McEwan points out. "Life is not so good for an Indigenous person living in Victoria...or, for that matter, anywhere in Australia."

Report: Indigenous in Victoria

By Keith McEwan*

As a person keenly interested in Indigenous affairs for more than 60 years, I find that the 2008-09 Indigenous Affairs Report of the Victorian Government, presented in an “easy to read” format along with beautiful art work, contains most useful information.

After reading so many negative, alienating stories about Indigenous life over the decades, it is heartening that this report, when offering a profile of the 33,000 Indigenous people living in Victoria, affirms that “Indigenous culture and heritage is a fundamental part of Victoria’s identity” and calls on all Victorians to “recognise, respect and celebrate” Indigenous contributions.     

In times when populism can adversely influence governments, and obfuscation becomes a defence mechanism, it is refreshing to read a report that is frank, honest and free of false, unrealistic promises.

The IA Report details what is widely known: life is not so good for an Indigenous person living in Victoria…or, for that matter, anywhere in Australia.

Mothers of babies: of the mothers admitted to hospital a month before delivery of a baby, 40% of Indigenous women were smokers compared with 8% of all women  (statistics from 2007-08 year). The report unfortunately does not analyse alcohol, the most common drug damaging babies: the foetal alcohol syndrome does not feature.

Babies dying before delivery: Indigenous perinatal mortality rate increased to 20.4 per 1000 births compared to the non-Indigenous rate of 9.8 per 1000 births (2007).

Police interaction: Indigenous young people aged 10-17 were 3.1 times more likely to be processed by Victoria Police than non-Indigenous young people (2008-9).

Who police caution: Police caution (instead of charging) 54.7% of non-Indigenous young people they come across in their duties, but only 34.3% of Indigenous young people (2008-9).

Repeat offenders: the proportion of Indigenous prisoners who returned to prison within two years after being discharged was 49.1% compared with 33.1% for non-Indigenous prisoners. Released Indigenous prisoners are almost 16 times more likely than non-Indigenous released prisoners to return to prison under sentence within two years (2008-9).

Appendix A, in highlighting  the disadvantages experienced by Victorian Aboriginals contains no surprises – for example it says:

Life Expectancy: Indigenous Victorian males live 12 years less on average than non-Indigenous males, to age 67 compared with age 79.  For females, it is 10 years less, to 73 by comparison with 83 (2009).

Jobless:The unemployment rate was 15.7% for Indigenous Victorians, 5.3% for non-Indigenous Victorians (2006). (There are many Indigenous people receiving disability support pensions, and thus also unemployed. Many suffer from ongoing trauma and disadvantages they and their families have experienced over many decades).

Owning your home: 37.3% of Indigenous Victorians own their homes compared with 74.6% of non-Indigenous Victorians (2006).

Protecting children: with Victorian children 0-16 years, almost 5 children in every 1000 are in need of protection from abuse or neglect. By comparison, just on 11 times as many – almost 55 per 1000 Indigenous children – need protection (2008-9).

The Strategic Action Area Target mentioned in the IA Report, for this most disturbing situation, is limited to reducing the number to 51 per 1000 Indigenous children in 2013. It is obvious that there are sensitive, family and community issues involved in overcoming this problem, especially those relating to the long-term harm that could result in removing children from their families in the worst cases. Nevertheless, if “Little children are sacred” – as the NT report said –  more resources and qualified staff must be deployed to tackle such a stark violation of a vital human right belonging to those most in need of the community’s protection, children.

Imprisonment: Again the figures are alarming: For every 1000 Indigenous Victorian adults, 10 are in prison. For every 1000 non-Indigenous Victorian adults, 1 is in prison (2008).

Space considerations must limit such a report from covering such a wide range of issues, but it is surprising that there is little is mention of the justice system and the sentencing alternatives to imprisonment, which should be firmly acknowledged as a sanction of last resort.  The progress being made with the Indigenous Restorative Justice Scheme, Community-Based Orders and Suspended Sentences, for example, would enable readers of the IA Report to learn how effective these much less-costly to the taxpayer alternatives to prison have been in protecting the community and rehabilitating offenders.

Many leaders of Australia’s First Peoples have sought self-determination over the decades as they struggled to break free of the missions and reserves, and fought through the courts to claim land rights.  In this regard, the IA Report tells of the distinct Indigenous communities in Victoria, with 38 Indigenous networks now in place and with 8 Regional Indigenous Councils established. It is also a notable achievement that 200 Indigenous, community-run organisations are operating, covering health, culture, sport, justice and legal advocacy.

Of the utmost importance, in view of the long-term harm done to Indigenous Australians over generations due to the forcible removal of their children by government authorities until relatively recent times, the 2009-10 State Budget allocation of $6.2 million to Stolen Generations Victoria is to be applauded. This means that the vital work of attending to the special needs of many Indigenous families, who suffer trauma and disadvantages as a result of such inhuman actions, can continue.

As Deputy Premier, Rob Hulls, states in the preface to the IA Report:
“We are still working towards our goal of  closing the considerable gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian...we are making progress…it is up to all Victorians, however, to help provide the opportunity for current and future Indigenous generations.”

This report offers a guide to what has to be done by all of us.

– Keith McEwan, member of Civil Liberties Australia, 7 March 2010

Keith McEwan has been a close observer of Indigenous matters in Victoria and nationally for more than 50 years, as a concerned individual and as an adoptive parent, with wife June, of an Indigenous child.

With an appeal pending in the High Court from the SA Government because of the over-turning of part of its 'bikie' legislation, similar laws are largely on hold Australia-wide. In WA, motorcycle groups are getting active ahead of a likely mid-year introduction of anti-association laws to the WA Parliament.
(Photo: Club rally, Fremantle, Feb 2010: photo by JR)

Bikies rally to fight legislation

West Australian motorcycle clubs called members and supporters together last month to fight proposed legislation under which the WA Government would turn selected individuals into criminal pariahs, without charge or conviction.

On Saturday 13 February 2010, a protest ride in Fremantle, organized by the United Motorcycle Council of Western Australia which represents a dozen clubs, demonstrated opposition to the laws, set to be introduced to the WA Parliament mid-year.

The anti-association laws are expected to dictate who a person or group could talk to, where they could converse, and how frequently. They are not likely to specifically name bikies, and so could be applied to any group.

The rally involved a range of clubs, motorcyclists’ families and several generations of bikers from all walks of life blending harmoniously in a bid to highlight what they described as the absurdity of “radical and reactionary proposals”.

UMCWA spokesperson, Peter Godfree, said the laws unfairly targeted bikers and would alienate motorcyclists and club members from the rest of the community. Already, negative stereotyping of so-called “outlaw” bikies was stigmatizing council members’ children at school and impacting adversely on members’ businesses.

“UMCs in every state believe it is an issue that is not just for their state, but an issue all Australians need to be aware of, so we decided to band together to fight the laws,” Mr Godfree said. “We have a lot of public support in this state and obviously in other states as well.

“It’s not just unconstitutional…it’s downright un-Australian.”

Mr Godfree said that the Attorney General, Christian Porter, and other members of the WA Government had chosen not to consult with or inform the Council about the planned laws in advance.

He said he hoped the protests would “open the eyes of average Australians” so they would know “the laws are not right, not fair and don’t just attack us, they affect everybody”.

The group are prepared to take their battle as far as the High Court if necessary, he said, questioning the credibility of government assertions the laws will take aim at only the “half a percent of the population” that comprise “outlaw clubs”.

“Even if they got rid of bikies, these laws would stay in place and be used to attack other minorities,” Mr Godfree said.

“They’re using us as a platform for laws, like seizure of assets laws and stop-and -search laws, which they said they would use on the bikies and the Mr Bigs of the drug trade, but you’ll find that they’re using them on the general public.”

Last year Mr Porter said he would defer drafting the bill to observe hiccups in the anti-bikie legislation of NSW and South Australia.

SA’s Supreme Court has overturned the SA legislation, quashing one charge on a point of judicial principle. The basis for the decision was that the A-G was making decisions to ban clubs and people on secret “information”, not evidence, provided by the SA Police Commissioner. While such an administrative decision was, under the legislation, a legal process, it was not legal if the information/decision remained secret so that it could not be reviewed by a court.

The SA Government is appealing the Supreme Court ruling to the High Court of Australia. All States and Territories are awaiting the High Court ruling.

Anti-association laws can brand individuals as criminals without a conventional conviction. Anyone subject to an anti-association order is restricted as to whom they can speak with, how frequently, and where. It works in reverse also: ordinary people are stopped from conversing with branded individuals.

As Mr Godfree pointed out, banning one person can often impact on children and workmates.

“We have a perfectly good judicial system and it should be left to the courts to decide who is a criminal and who isn’t,” Mr Godfree said.

A report from the Australian Institute of Criminology to the August 2009 federal parliamentary inquiry showed ‘anti-bikie’ fortification laws introduced to the WA Parliament in 2001 to combat the “sinister and complex activities of criminal gangs”, had rarely been used.

In 2008, after legal challenges, the High Court upheld the WA Police Commissioner’s right to seek warrants under organized crime anti-fortification provisions contained in the Corruption and Crime Commission Act, but the report also indicated that since 2004, no warrants had been sought.

A spokesperson for the CCC last month said the latest figures, from the 2008-09 Annual Report, confirmed no anti-fortification warrants had been issued.

In relation to the WA legislation, Mr Porter said late in February that: "The recent protests by the UMCWA have not fazed the Government. Introducing the organised crime legislation is a priority for the State Government. The legislation will target groups who meet together for the purposes of planning, organising or engaging in criminal activity. If these groups are not involved in organised crime they have nothing to worry about."

By Liz Murray, who is an Australian freelance researcher and journalist writing on civil liberties, human rights and crime matters (Photo by JR).

POSTSCRIPT: It is expected that the ‘bikie’ laws will form the basis of a complaint to the UN Human Rights Council when it reviews Australia’s compliance in 2011.

Who would have thought a Labor Government would introduce Big-Brother-like ID numbers for school students! With the rationale that parents could "be able to track the records of a child's schooling" even if they move schools.

I have been/am a teacher. Parents have numerous ways to track their child's progress - chief among them talking to their children, meeting with teachers, checking homework, reviewing periodic progress reports, attending extra-curricular events, knowing their children's friends and their families. The only thing "an individual identity number" enables is computerised reporting, tracking, and linking of data - students, schools, teachers ... past, present, and future.

Labor needs to clarify precisely what problem "an individual identity number" is addressing that is not addressed fully by other means. And Labor's policy on privacy, use, and security of such numbers. Frankly, if a parents, teachers, or schools need numbers to track student performance, then there is something seriously wrong with our education enterprise that mere identity numbers won't fix.

Judy Bamberger,
CLA member, O'Connor ACT

Editor, CLA Your Opinion: The Tax Commissioner's defence of his powers to break into homes and businesses without judicial warrants as 'trust me, I'm a good guy' is a dangerous argument. Powers such as these should be resisted when proposed, and removed where they exist. Many societies have lived to regret their complacency in allowing them. In the 1970s the Statistician asked for these powers to gather statistics. After a vigorous campaign, they were deleted.

If, as the Commissioner says, the powers are rarely used, then the same judicial controls society imposes on police investigating serious crimes are appropriate. We are becoming far too complacent about the erosion of our civil liberties, and too trusting that our governments always act with discretion.

Bill Orme
Executive Member, NSW Privacy Committee 1975-82
Neutral Bay, NSW

One CLA member has run into what he calls 'hypocritical bullies' administering land tax. He has had to produce a 'sleep diary' for three years - yes, three years - to prove he lives where he lives. What's next - a thought diary to prove you haven't thought any bad thoughts against government bureaucrats,

Article continues »...

Story begins:

The Treasurer of South Australia, Mr Kevin Foley, recently promised during a radio interview to cut land tax if his government is returned in the March state election. Transcript and reader comments (including by CLA member, Trevor Cocks):
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/foley-fires-land-tax-shot/story-fn2sdwup-1225824317933

Trevor Cocks writes:

My concern is not so much the land tax itself, but the way Mr Foley's revenue department administers the tax act and how they seem to arbitrarily assess exemption status.

Their decisions seem to be based on ambiguous criteria that is supposed to define principle place of residence (PPR). It is a definition which varies from state to state
for each land tax act. For example, in the ACT it is defined according to whether the property is rented or not, and in NSW only properties valued over $300,000 attract land tax.

In SA the assessment of land tax exemption is far more complicated and it has become clear to me that not every home owner is treated equally.

Although land tax was supposed to be abolished when the GST (goods and services tax) started, state governments continue to charge some property owners with land tax. The administrative process for collecting this tax varies between the states, but in SA it appears to be based on very arbitrary guidelines that can make their decisions quite discriminatory and unfair. I can illustrate this with my own experience:

Mr Foley and his department, Revenue SA, asked me to produce a diary of overnight stays for the past three (3) years in order to get land tax exemption for my PPR in Adelaide, the only property I have in SA. It seems I lost its land tax exempt status because of a Revenue SA error: they posted me a bill that was returned unclaimed because they had sent it to the wrong address.

I was temporarily in Canberra at the time when a staffer in RevenueSA incorrectly addressed the bill. When I complained about this and applied to have my exempt status reinstated, I was asked to prove that I slept at my Adelaide property more nights than not over the past three years. I refused on the grounds that such personal and security information about a citizen should not be collected by governments for fear of potential misuse.

I asked SA Legislative Councillor John Darley to represent me in discussions with Mr
Foley about my situation, but the outcome was much the same, except for a list of even more sensitive requirements to prove PPR. Apparently, there was an attempt to discredit me by suggesting RevenueSA had taped telephone conversations of me that prove I only occasionally live at the Adelaide address and that they had visited the property and found no one at home. When asked to produce what would have been illegal tapes, they backed off and admitted that no one had actually visited the property.  In other words, someone working for Mr Foley appears ready to use a fib and bully tactics until challenged. This surely is a dangerous misuse of bureaucratic power.

As a form of additional punishment for complaining about their treatment, I had to provide daily sleep diaries for my whereabouts over the past three (3) years in both SA and interstate!

I also had to produce copies of income tax returns, insurance papers and answers to a set of other intrusive questions, all of which seem somewhat unrelated to their
published criteria for PPR. When I provided some of this information (eg. comparative contents insurance for my PPR and a small country house that I was renovating and using as an office for a small part-time interstate business), this was still not enough. They wanted those sleep diaries!

Mr Foley made it clear that it is entirely my choice as to whether I provide more information to his department…but, if I don’t, I have to pay land tax on my principal place of residence, even though it was RevenueSA’s error that abolished my existing exemption.

While members of Mr Foley's state government seem quite sensitive about any questioning of their own sleeping arrangements (such as in the case of the Premier, Mr Rann), they obviously have no respect for the privacy of the sleeping arrangements of their citizens.

I am looking forward to voting against hypocritical bullies at the state election.

Trevor Cocks,
Adelaide, SA

People who think refugees do it easy on Christmas Island don't understand the reality of their situation, Marie Gordon writes. She refutes claims of Shadow Immigration Minister Scott Morrison after his recent whistle-stop visit to CI.

Article continues »...

Christmas Island is no cushy gig

'Rocking the asylum boats' (Scott Morrison, Sun-Herald Sydney, 7/2 ), clearly knows nothing about Christmas Island, or refugees (he calls them 'illegals' twice; they are not and never have been that). Robinson's article is so full of conjectures I can only wonder why he has set himself up for scrutiny.

1. Boat people are not 'illegals'. Australia is a signatory to the International Refugee Act and, as such, we are obliged to accept refugees into our country.
2. Along with 20 others that I know of, I write to refugees in detention on CI. Some of them have been waiting up to 9-11 months to be processed, so where does Robinson get this idea of instant visas and a swift move to the mainland? If only. I know this from my two reliable contacts who live and work on the island.
3. How far did he 'investigate' conditions when he visited. Did he see the 68 children who are detained within a fenced facility, which consists mostly of metal, concrete and gravel, tiny demountable building, with small bedrooms. The children are under guard and not free to leave this prison. What happened to the Government's promise that no children shall be in detention?
4. The Human Rights Commission wants CI axed and with good reason. PM Rudd (who, initially, wanted it closed) now can't get enough tents shipped to the island to hold more and more refugees. He knows he can get away with blue murder as CI is in the Excision Zone (the reason why Howard had it built there), which means we can weasel out of our commitment to the International Refugee Act.
5. As for 'case management', there are at present five people trying, in vain, to manage the unmanageable.
6. As for the 'wads of money' the asylum seekers are supposed to have, the truth is that they don't have enough money to buy a biro from the canteen. One refugee had to leave his country, his wife and three children to come to Australia hoping he could make a better future for them. Ten months later he is still waiting.
7. Lastly, processing refugees on CI is far more expensive than processing on the mainland. It costs at least twice as much to keep refugees on CI as it would on the mainland.

Marie Gordon, member of Civil Liberties Australia and Amnesty International Palmerston ACT

Morrison article: http://www.scottmorrison.com.au/info/multimedia.aspx?id=70

Throughout Australia, people are making personal decisions about full-body airport scanners. If you are against them (or for them), you can have your say by writing to the man responsible for the decision. Here Kathy Lund's point of view.

Article continues »...

To Mr Albanese (Transport Minister)

I am sure I am one of many who are outraged at the decision to introduce body scanners to our Australian airports. I can't express enough how disgusted I am at hearing this news. Having voted your party in at the last election I am full of regrets now & you certainly have lost my vote on this one.

Your decision is based on nothing but lies & deceit. It has been stated many times that the underwear bomber would not have been detected with a body scanner. That there are better ways to detect terrorists using smart technology, dogs, personal profiling & training of our security personnel. Must we suffer this humiliating & dehumanizing indecent assault on our privacy & right to good health? The terrorists will be laughing at us & developing new ways to out smart your systems.

What's next? Internal searches for all passengers as these scanners don't detect internal devices, and that's where they have (even as we speak) started hiding bombs? Perhaps as has been suggested in the UK we could put these devices on cameras in streets or use them at sporting venues to detect criminals?

Don't say its not possible once they have been implemented in airports. Why don't we all wear hospital gowns on the plane, pass through a room where we remove the gown & let the security personnel look at us & take pictures!! How would you go getting that implemented in airports, there would be an out-cry & yet this is what you are proposing to do under the guise of, "what they don't know wont hurt them".

It is an affront to our privacy & our health!! Is your government being led by the nose by corporate giants ? I think so in an attempt to up-sell on their part. They make mega dollars & we lose our right to privacy on some trumped up attempt to bomb a plane.

And don't forget we are a multicultural nation, have you considered the implications on religious grounds? What about the children? Can they be viewed as well by these scanners? What ever happened to protecting our children from child pornography, not enhancing the sick world of pornographers. Would you want your children or wife or mother going through this all in the name of security?

Security personnel have already attempted to use this technology for their own purpose when recently a US Congressman was directed to the scanner - even though it was optional - knowing full well who he was. (He was in favor of not running out the body scanners). Security staff admitted they knew full well who he was when he identified himself...proving that this type of system can easily be used & manipulated for personal gain whatever agenda the operator has.

I'm wondering who will be the terrorist, the person with the bomb or the people looking at us naked & doing who knows what with our images & giving us a nice dose of radiation at the same time? Even small doses of radiation build up over time & damage our DNA. And who knows what are the implications for the health of our younger generations, who will no doubt end up with higher doses over years of exposure.

This is not the way to go lose our freedom & rights, it makes you the government no better than the terrorists, you know. It's not right. Let's be smart in this country - don't follow like lambs to the slaughter!!

Oh, & by the way, I wont get used to the idea as time goes on: I'm sure that's a theory your government is planning on. If you were truthful to the public & told them all the details, I'm sure they would not get used to it either.

I love to travel but, when this type of propaganda is rolled out, I say boycott these airports & tell our government they have gone too far.

Mr Albanese, your government goes too far!!!

Regards
Kathryn Lund
Minlaton, SA

Editor, Canberra Times: I agree with Prof Pat McGorry that immigration detention centres are "factories for producing mental illness". But I'd go further. I'd say federal laws designed to punish refugees (for who they are) are similar to the penal laws that England used to punish the Irish for who they were.

Edmund Burke's description of England's penal laws (in occupied Ireland) also applies to Australia's punitive detention laws: "They are well-fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man."

Valuing a detention policy (that can't feel pain) higher than children who can is insane. There has to be a better way to win an election than serial child abuse.

Graham Macafee, CLA member, Latham ACT