Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2005 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page
What they said ...
'The significance of the deportation of Scott Parkin is that it will intimidate other critics of the Howard Government's Iraq war policies. It is anti-democratic and will stifle political discussion' Paul Gray, commentator for The Herald Sun
'Protecting the Australian community from forms of politically motivated violence is a valid reason to deport visitors' Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Elliston
The issue at a glance
On September 15, 2005, American activist, Scott Parkin, was deported from Australia. The action was taken after the Federal Government declared Mr Parkin a national security risk.
Mr Parkin had not been charged with breaking any laws while in Australia. His visa was cancelled by the Department of Immigration following advice of an adverse security assessment by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), which led to his automatic detention under the Migration Act, and subsequent deportation.
Under the Migration Act his detention and removal from the country was at his own expense. Though the nature of the claims against him remain unknown, Mr Parkin has defended himself claiming to be a peaceful activist, not involved in violent activity, and also claiming not to have advocated the use of violence.
The Australian Government has stated that it is unable, on security grounds, to give details of the reasons for Mr Parkin's detention and deportation.
As a result of a complaint, Ian Carnell, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Australia's spy watchdog, will conduct an inquiry into Mr Parkin's removal. His report will be provided to Attorney-General Philip Ruddock who may or may not provide details to the public.
Background
American political activist Scott Parkin visa was cancelled under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 as prescribed by Migration Regulation 2.43 after the Australian Security Intelligence 0rgansiation made an adverse security assessment against him. Mr Parkin was arrested by the Australian Federal Police on 10 September 2005, held in solitary confinement for 5 days in the Melbourne Prisoner Assessment Centre and deported back to the US on 15 September 2005.
Under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 the Minister may cancel any visa for a variety of grounds. Among those that may have been applied in Mr Parkin's case are
(a) any circumstances which permitted the grant of the visa no longer exist; or
(b) its holder has not complied with a condition of the visa; or
(c) another person required to comply with a condition of the visa has not complied with that condition; or
(d) the presence of its holder in Australia is, or would be, a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community.
Information about Scott Parkin
(Much of what is outlined below is an edited version of Wikipedia's entry on Scott Parkin. This can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Parkin The Wikipedia entry appears to have a slight bias in Mr Parkin's favour which the summary below has attempted to avoid.)
Scott Parkin is a 36-year old is a United States activist, history teacher, and member of the Houston Global Awareness Collective (an American-based protest group he co-founded). He has been a vocal opponent of the American invasion of Iraq, and of Halliburton , a military contractor with links to the Bush administration that has been given major contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.
During a recent visit to Australia, ASIO requested an apparently voluntary interview with Mr Parkin, which he declined. He was detained by Federal police on 10 September 2005 and kept in solitary confinement until he was forcibly deported under escort, his visitor's visa having been revoked on the grounds that he was 'a threat to national security'. The details behind these allegations were never given, though an article published in The Australian alleged that Parkin may have intended to advocate techniques such as throwing marbles underneath police horses. Mr Parkin has since denied such suggestions.
It has been suggested that Mr Parkin may have been deported to test the Australian public's reaction to anti-terror laws being introduced around the same time as the deportation. This claim was denied by the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock. The investigation being conducted into Mr Parkin's deportation will test the powers of the Attorney-General under the National Security Information Act to prevent the facts of the case being made public. This has been suggested as another possible motive for Mr Parkin's deportation.
Mr Parkin has been charged almost $11,700 for the cost of his detention, the flight back to the United States for himself and two Australian Government escorts and their accommodation in Los Angeles for four nights. He would have to pay this sum should he ever return to Australia. (Under the Migration Act his detention was at his own expense, as was his removal.)
The on-line encylopedia Wikipedia has an entry dealing with Scott Parkin and his deportation from Australia. This site is good at removing potential bias, however, its Parkin entry, though supplying interesting information, appeared to have a bias in Mr Parkin's favour at the time this issue outline was written.
Wikipedia entries are regularly reviewed and amended, so this possible bias may not remain.
The entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Parkin
The Friends of Scott Parkin Internet site is run by a group of Mr Parkin's Australian supporters whose aim is to have his name cleared and his visa restored along with his capacity to revisit Australia.
The site gives information about Scott Parkin and what happened to him during his recent visit to Australia. Its focus is on the revoking of his visa and the period he spent in detention.
The site can be found at http://www.scottparkin.org/
Houston Global Awareness is a grassroots organization which aims to raise awareness of globalisation, the environment, and militarism, as well as class, gender, and racial inequality. The group's mission statement claims its members 'strive to catalyze racially just, non-hierarchal, autonomous mass movements to replace corporate and government power with socially just, directly democratic, peaceful alternatives'. It claims to use 'non-violent, direct action and popular education as tools for social change'. Scott Parkin is a co-founder of the group. Its Internet site can be found at http://users2.ev1.net/~geosynch/hgac.html
On September 16, 2005, Radio National's AM program conducted an interview with Scott Parkin very soon after his return to the United States. In this interview Mr Parkin speaks of his consternation at the action taken against him and of his intention to challenge the grounds on which he was deported. A full transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1461716.htm
On September 20, 2005, Radio National's Law Report conducted interviews with Scott Parkin's barrister, Julian Burnside, and with the federal Attorney General, Mr Philip Ruddock, on the circumstances surrounding Scott Parkin's deportation.
A full transcript of this program can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s1463699.htm
Arguments supporting Scott Parkin's deportation from Australia
1. Scott Parkin was deported because he was considered a national security risk
It has been claimed by the Australian Government that Scott Parkin was deported because he represented a risk to Australia's national security.
When asked by a caller to Neill Michell's 3AW Radio program on September 23, 2005, why Scott Parkin had been detained and deported, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, replied, 'Well we had advice which I am aware of the substance of that advice and on basis of that advice he was removed from the country.'
Though the Government has claimed it is unable, for security reasons, to specify the nature of the risk Mr Parkin has been claimed to represent, The Australian's foreign correspondent, Greg Sheridan, has given some detail of this supposed threat.
On September 22, 2005, Greg Sheridan co-authored an article with John Kerin, claiming that Scott Parkin planned to 'instruct demonstrators in tactics including disabling police horses and springing arrested protestors from custody'. Among the tactics that have been attributed to Mr Parkin is the throwing of marbles under the feet of police horses.
2. The assessment that Mr Parkin posed a national security risk was made by ASIO
The reason given for Mr Parkin's detention and deportation was a unfavourable security assessment made by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).
The Australian Attorney General, Mr Philip Ruddock, has said the decision was based on matters related to 'politically motivated violence'. Mr Ruddock further stated, 'ASIO is responsible for protecting the Australian community from all forms of politically motivated violence, including violent protest activity, and they've made and assessment in relation to those matters.'
It has been reported by The Australian's foreign correspondent, Greg Sheridan, that Mr Parkin's 'tourist visa was cancelled after the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) reported that his training techniques were likely to increase the violence at large anti-capitalist demonstrations and potentially endanger riot police.'
Much of justification for Mr Parkin's detention and deportation comes from the confidence the Government places in the competence and independence of ASIO.
3. Scott Parkin's deportation was not politically motivated
It has been claimed that Scott Parkin was deported because he holds political views that are opposed by the current United States Government and it ally, the Australian Government. Those who hold this view maintain that Parkin's deportation was essentially an act of political censorship. This view has been disputed by the Australian Government, which has argued that Parkin's political beliefs were not a factor in the decision to remove him from this country.
The Australian Attorney General, Mr Philip Ruddock, has claimed that no political influence was exerted in order to secure Mr Parkin's deportation. Mr Ruddock has stated that the 36-year-old history teacher had not been accused of a crime and his 'political activities were not relevant to the decision'.
Mr Ruddock has further claimed that the decision to deport Mr Parkin 'hasn't been influenced by me, my colleagues, or foreign government influence.'
4. Scott Parkin's deportation was not opposed by the leader of the Federal Opposition
The leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, was given a secret security briefing on ASIO's grounds for deciding that Mr Parkin posed a national security risk. Mr Beazley then gave his support to the decision to detain and deport Mr Parkin.
Mr Beazley stated, 'We asked the right questions about this and we got the answers so we accept the decision that was taken. We don't take these things lying down, we take seriously people's civil liberties and the dimensions of a problem somebody might cause and we asked the relevant questions about it.'
The Federal Attoney General, Mr Philip Ruddock, has noted that the leader of the Opposition has endorsed Mr Parkin's detention and removal from Australia. In a radio interview with Sydney radio journalist Richard Glover, Mr Ruddock stated, 'The act provides that one person gets that [security] briefing, who is not a member of the executive government ... the leader of the opposition, whoever it is. And the leader of the opposition asked for and received a briefing, and he did not wish to take it further.'
Richard Glover than asked Mr Ruddock, 'So you see that as a signal, that he [Mr Beazley] felt it was fair and reasonable [to deport Mr Parkin] knowing what he knew after the briefing?' Mr Ruddock replied, 'Well, I think that's a reasonable assumption to make.'
5. Scott Parkin agreed to the expedition of his deportation
Those who support the removal of Mr Parkin from Australia have noted that rather than remain in Australia and contest the grounds on which his visa had been revoked, Mr Parkin actually agreed to the expedition of his return to the United States.
This point has been made by the Federal Attorney General, Mr Philip Ruddock.
There are those who have claimed that in requesting the hastening of his deportation, Mr Parkin was acknowledging that he had behaved inappropriately during his time in Australia and thus that the Australian Government was entitled to withdraw his visa and have him removed from the country.
6. The precise grounds for Scott Parkin's deportation have had to be kept secret as a security provision
It has been repeatedly claimed by both the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and by the Attorney General, Mr Philip Ruddock that it would compromise Australia's security network if the precise grounds on which Mr Parkin's visa was revoked were revealed.
The general argument put is that to reveal the contents of an ASIO briefing might endanger or reduce the effectiveness of the operative or operatives who produced it. It might also inform other individuals who were regarded as a risk that they were under observation.
Mr Howard has stated, 'We received certain advice that, in accordance with the longstanding practice of not disclosing the contents of security advice... I'm not going to break from the convention and disclose the security information I have been given.'
The Federal Attorney General, Mr Philip Ruddock, has similarly claimed that for 'operational security' considerations it would be inappropriate for him to reveal the details of the ASIO security briefing which resulted in Mr Parkin's visa being withdrawn.
Mr Ruddock criticised the leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown, for demanding that the nature of ASIO's assessment of Mr Parkin be made available to party leaders in addition to the leader of the Opposition. Mr Ruddock stated, 'Senator Brown was essentially asking for details of the security assessment that formed the basis for cancelling Mr Parkin's visa ...Where does Senator Brown propose to draw the line?
Will his next suggestion be that ASIO make public its threat assessments - effectively issuing instructions to terrorists about how to exploit our vulnerabilities?
Next he will want details about current operations, potentially putting the lives of ASIO and law enforcement officers, informants and even members of the public at risk.'
Current legislation also allows that if the matter should be challenged in the High Court, the Attorney General would still be able to successfully request that the details of the ASIO report not be made available outside the court in the interest of protecting Australia's national security and its intelligence community.
Arguments opposing Scott Parkin's deportation from Australia
1. Scott Parkin did not pose a national security risk
It has been repeatedly claimed that neither prior to his arrival in Australia, nor at any time after his arrival in this country, did Mr Parkin do anything that could be construed as a national security risk.
Scott Parkin and those he has worked with both in Australia and the United States claim to be committed to non-violent protest. Houston Global Awareness, the group that Mr Parkin established in the United States, has a declared commitment to non-violence in its mission statement and asks all who participate in its protests to abide by a set of guidelines which includes adhering to non-violent methods.
Mr Parkin has stated, 'It is unprincipled to do anything violent at any time, including in a protest situation. During my time in Australia I spoke publicly against techniques to de-arrest a person who has been lawfully detained by the Police because it is against my principles. ASIO should know this if they are doing their job properly.'
Mr Parkin has further claimed, 'Horses suffer from being used as riot control machines and I completely oppose anything that abuses them. The media and public are welcome to come to non-violent protest training conducted by me or my colleagues.'
On October 31, 2005, responding to questioning by Senator Bob Brown in a hearing of the Senate Estimates Committee, ASIO Director-General Paul O'Sullivan confirmed that Mr Parkin was not involved in violence.
Asked if Mr Parkin had been violent while in Australia, Mr O'Sullivan said, 'I understand there was some background while he was in the United States, but I believe the answer to your question in respect to Australia is no.'
Mr O'Sullivan also denied any knowledge of an alleged leak from ASIO to The Australian newspaper and refused to vouch for the accuracy of a report in The Australian that Mr Parkin advocated violent protest techniques.
2. Scott Parkin was deported because of his political views
It has been claimed that Scott Parkin was deported because the Australian Government disapproved of his political views. Scott Parkin is a vocal opponent of the Iraq war, a conflict the Australian Government has supported via its public pronouncements and through the commitment of Australian troops. There are those who have maintained that Mr Parkin was deported because in the United States and potentially in Australian he had been an outspoken critic of this war.
It has also been suggested that Parkin's pointed criticisms of Halliburton (an influential United States military contractor which has received lucrative contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq) has angered the United States Government and by extension, the Australian Government.
Critics of Parkin's deportation have complained that the aim of his removal was to prevent him promoting his views in Australia.
On September 19, 2005, Paul Gray, a commentator for The Herald Sun complained, 'The Government says Parkin's deportation is to protect our national security.
In reality, it's an act of political censorship ... The significance of the deportation of Scott Parkin is that it will intimidate other critics of the Howard Government's Iraq war policies. It is anti-democratic and will stifle political discussion.'
3. Scott Parkin has not been given an opportunity to defend himself
Under international human rights treaties, all Australians and non citizens who are temporarily residing in this country have the right to freedom from arbitrary detention, and the right to be provided with a reason if they are detained or arrested.
This right is intended to allow they to defend themselves against whatever charge has lead to their detention and to protect them from detention, arrest or imprisonment on illegitimate grounds. The terms under which Mr Parkin was detained denied him this right.
Responding to a question regarding the grounds on which Mr Parkin was detained, his barrister, Julian Burnside, declared, 'We just don't know. We simply do not know. We don't know what ASIO takes into account, we don't know how they process it, we don't know whether they got their facts wrong, and we don't know what standards or values or criteria they applied to whatever facts they worked on. We simply do not know, and the Department and the Attorney-General will not tell us.'
Mr Burnside further stated, 'We have the position where the government won't tell him what he's done and in litigation can refuse to allow evidence to show what he's done. So [Parkin] is in the position where he can be held indefinitely while he challenges this, but may find out nothing about why he's being held.'
After leaving Australia and returning to the United States, Mr Parkin declared, 'I'd like them [the Australian Government] to open up the assessment and see what they have about me in there that led them to this conclusion [that he was a security risk] , so I can at least defend myself.'
4. The manner of Scott Parkin's detention was inappropriate
Scott Parkin was detained in the Melbourne Custody Centre in the magistrates court building for almost a week at his own expense, without charge and without knowledge of the grounds on which he had been deemed a security risk. Mr Parkin was held in a space without natural light and denied visitors other than his lawyers.
It has been claimed that the manner of his detention was unreasonable, making him unduly vulnerable to pressure either to admit to offences he had not committed or to agree to deportation provisions which, under different circumstances, he would have objected to.
The penalty also includes the cost of Mr Parkin's detention and his escort home. Scott Parkin has theoretically been barred from visiting Australia for three years, however, he will be charged nearly $12,000 (the cost of his detention and escort) should he ever return to Australia. The effect of this is that he is very unlikely ever to make another visit to this country.
5. Scott Parkin was given inaccurate information about his rights
It has been claimed that Scott Parkin was given inaccurate information about what rights he had in relation to his detention within and removal from Australia.
While the terms of Mr Parkin's imprisonment made it understandable that he would seek to leave Australia as soon as he reasonably could, he was apparently informed that once he left this country he would be unable to challenge the basis of his deportation.
Some of Mr Parkin's legal team have claimed he was presented with a false choice - remain in detention and face a growing bill for the cost of your incarceration or return to the United States and accept the legitimacy of your deportation.
Mr. Parkin's lawyer, Julian Burnside, said his client had been told by immigration officers that his deportation would be brought forward if he dropped his appeal to the Migration Review Tribunal to find out why his visa was revoked. Mr Burnside commented "[this is] factually false and legally improper. What they're doing, in effect, is saying: 'All right, we'll hold you here in solitary confinement until you dump your action,' and that's outrageous."
Marika Dias, another of Mr Parkin's lawyers, has stated, 'They produced a statement for him to sign, requesting his departure be expedited, but acknowledging in doing so he would be waiving his right to seek a review of the decision to deport him.'
Later legal advice has indicated that Mr Parkin, in accepting immediate expulsion, was not forfeiting his right to fight the decision.
6. Scott Parkin's background had been investigated before he was granted a visitor's visa
Mr Parkin was granted a six month tourist visa before arriving in Australia. Barrister and refugee advocate, Julian Burnside, QC, who has been acting for Mr Parkin, has stated, 'It makes no sense that he would be given a visa if there was something in his past that justified an adverse assessment.'
The same point was made by Greens Senator Bob Brown who has stated, 'He [Parkin] was granted a visa to enter the country, so his arrest contradicts the Government's own assessment of his credentials.'
Mr Parkin's supporters claim there is nothing in his background that should have prevented him being given his initial visa nor anything that would have justified its subsequent withdrawal.
Mr Parkin has been arrested only once in the United States for a minor misdemeanour while staging a protest against oil giant Exxon-Mobile dressed in a tiger suit.
Further implications and outline author's comment
An official inquiry into Scott Parkin's deportation has been begun by Ian Carnell, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Mr Carnell's findings will be forwarded to the Attorney General, Mr Riuddock, who is under no obligation to make them public. He is equally under no obligation to make public the grounds on which Mr Parkin's visa was revoked.
According to Michael Head, a senior lecturer at the University of Western Sydney's law school, the legislative and judicial record indicates a lack of any effective political or legal scrutiny or check on ASIO's activities.
Mr Head has claimed that even the High Court has in the past effectively refused to call into question ASIO's assessment of what constitutes a threat to security. In 1982 the court rejected an attempt by the Church of Scientology to challenge ASIO's assessment that it presented a possible threat to security.
Currently, ASIO and the Federal Police can raid anyone's home at any time and remove them against their will, interrogate them, strip-search them and hold them under repeated warrants. The detained person has no right to know why he or she is being questioned.
Under the Government's new proposed aniti-terrorist legislation ASIO and the federal police would have even greater powers, including what has been termed 'shoot-to-kill' authorisation, the power to detain someone for a fortnight without charge, the power to prevent the detained person revealing by whom they had been detained and the power tp prevent the media making the action of authorities public.
Under the proposed new anti-terrorist legislation Mr Parkin's case would never have become public knowledge. Such provisions are clearly amenable to misuse and abuse and are grounds for serious concern. The Australian public and its representatives should speak out against them while it has the power to do so.
Sources The Age
September 13, page 13, comment by Brian Walters, `Pacifist tourists, the big new threat to our national security'.
September 17, Insight section, page 7, analysis by Ian Munro, `The secret country'.
September 22, page 15, comment by Sushi Das, `Time to lift the cloak off the dagger of our security agencies'.
September 14, page 3, news item by Andra Jackson et al, `"Spirited" protest advice led to US activist's detention'.
September 15, page 3, news item by Mark Phillips, `US peace activist "baffled" at ruling'.
September 17, page 7, analysis by Gerard Wright, `"If they'd ignored him, he'd have gone away"'.
The Australian
September 22, page 1, news item by Greg Sheridan, John Kerin, `Deported activist was to teach tactics of violence'.
September 17, page 18, comment by Matt Price, `Terror fact and fiction'
September 15, page 10, comment by James Norman, `Canberra's assault on democracy'.
September 14, page 15, editorial, `Why deport Parkin?'.
The Herald-Sun
September 12, page 11, news item by Holly Ife and Nick Butterly, `US man "security risk"'.
September 16, page 18, news item by Matthew Dunn, `Protester deported to the US'.
September 19, page 20, comment by Paul Gray, `Fascists taking control'. NOTE: Listed items may still be available on the Web. To search for them, cut and paste any headline into the search-box below (or type the headline in exactly) then click the search button. The search opens in a NEW WINDOW.
To make your search more accurate, put " around the pasted headline, as in "This is the headline"
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page
