As you read this email 25-year old Melbourne man Van Tuong Nguyen is sitting in a jail cell in Singapore awaiting execution for drug trafficking. ??Van committed a serious crime. But if you, like us, believe that the death penalty goes against fundamental human values, then please help Van's family in their efforts to stop this execution. ??There isn't much time, but there is still a chance that Van's life can be spared. Click on the link below to urge Singapore's Prime Minister to grant Van Tuong Nguyen clemency now: ??http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/PleaseShowClemency
A few years ago a young Australian made a terrible mistake. In a desperate attempt to pay off his twin brother's debts Van agreed to smuggle drugs from Cambodia to Australia. Van Tuong Nguyen had no criminal record and this was his first trip outside of Australia. He was caught in Singapore and subsequently convicted. Now, with all legal avenues of appeal exhausted, he could be executed any day. ??Drug trafficking cannot be condoned, but neither can the death penalty. The death penalty violates the most basic of human rights - the right to life - and is a cruel and inhumane form of punishment. ??On Monday Federal Liberal MP Judi Moylan urged people to take action to help Van Tuong Nguyen: "I think everyone needs to speak out about it and seek clemency from the Singapore Government." Moylan said that "unless we all get behind this campaign there will probably be no chance". ??Singapore's constitution gives the Prime Minister the power to grant clemency provided the condemned meet certain criteria --- Van Tuong Nguyen meets all those criteria. ??Right now people all around Australia - and some in Singapore - are rallying together to try to save Van's life. Parliamentarians on both sides of politics have spoken out and signed petitions, and John Howard, who opposes the death penalty, has promised to intensify his lobbying efforts. ??Please take a few minutes to write to the Prime Minister of Singapore and respectfully urge him to grant Van Tuong Nguyen clemency. ??http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/PleaseShowClemency
To help amplify this campaign in the Singaporean media, you will also be able to CC your message to the Singapore Straits Times, Singapore's largest daily newspaper. ??You can get more information about Van's case on our blog.
http://www.getup.org.au/blog.asp??
Thanks for being part of this important campaign. ??
The GetUp Team ??
PS. The more emails Singapore's PM gets the more chance of some kind of breakthrough, so please forward this email to all your friends who you think might be concerned about Van's plight.
Related:
By Vacy Vlazna and the Monster posted 31 October 05
The real story of David Hicks...? what is the evidence against the accused Australian citizen as he prepares for a US Kangaroo Caught. And what has happened to him while in an American/Cuban gulag?
Four Walls: The Australians, the Americans, they all know ö this is a facade, this is a farce"... David Hicksā US lawyer Josh Dratel.
Four Walls: He knowingly joined the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I don't have any sympathy for anyone who's done that"... Prime Minister John Howard?
Four Walls: David Hicks came cheap. As US-backed Northern Alliance fighters routed Afghanistan's Taliban in late 2001, they seized the fleeing young Australian at a taxi station. Then they sold him to the Americans for $1000.
Four Walls: Next month, when Hicks is due to front a US military commission on terror charges.
Four Walls: While Hicks has co-operated with interrogators, his case has irritated Washington and Canberra, stirring persistent allegations about American treatment of detainees and Australian acquiescence.
Four Walls: "What did David Hicks do to become one of the first Guantanamo detainees to face military trial - and the prospect of spending the rest of his life behind bars? There is no doubt he spent time in training camps. But did he, as charged by the Americans, conspire with Osama bin Laden to commit terrorism, aid enemy forces and try to kill coalition soldiers?"
Common Sense: David Hicks is pro-government propaganda fodder for Four Walls and a scapegoat for the illegal and degrading wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And there is doubt about everything until he can tell his side of story which incidentally doesn't even need to be told because people already know the real truth. So what are they trying to say just one month before his Star Chamber? That he's guilty?
Four Wall: Four Walls unravels the story of David Hicks from his early days doing drugs and menial jobs boning chickens and filleting kangaroos, through his restless years of yearning for inspiration and adventure, to his conversion to Islam and his fateful journey to Afghanistan."
Common Sense: Low life Four Walls is just getting in on the sensationalism and adding irrelevant material like, doing drugs, and boning chickens so the inference is that he is no good anyway for little johnny hoWARd the coward before David is tried and convicted.
Common Sense: But who didn't do drugs and who didn't eat or work and what's that got to do with the price of eggs?
Four Walls: "This investigation throws new light on Hicks' role as a trainee fighter in Pakistan and Afghanistan - and on his starring role as the only Caucasian scheduled for military trial."
"The trial - if it proceeds - might produce evidence to damn Hicks. But some, including his American lawyer and a former fellow detainee, claim Hicks is the "token white man" being used to lend the trials credibility in the non-western world."
"Reporter Debbie Whitmont weighs the evidence against Hicks and tests the fairness of the disputed military commission process. She examines the Australian Government's part in Hicksā detention, And she raises disturbing new questions about the treatment of Hicks while in US custody."
Related:
By Chris posted 3 November 05
Blue to be made unlawful with Howard's IR laws. Right to strike to be (almost) taken away
HOWARD MAKES THE 'BLUE' UNLAWFUL
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE GOES DOWN THE WC?
'The right of workers to leave their jobs is a test of freedom. Hitler suppressed strikes. Stalin suppressed strikes. But each also suppressed freedom. There are some things worse than strikes, much worse than strikes Š one of them is the loss of freedom.' US President Eisenhower.
'Eisenhower was correct in pointing out that the hallmark of the Police State is the loss of the right to strike. A worker's right to strike is surely a basic human right. The right to withdraw labour is the one thing that distinguishes a free worker from the slave. This is a fundamental freedom.' Clyde Cameron, former Labor Minister.
There are many concerns with WorkChoices, WC. I only deal with how Howard is to (almost) extinguish the limited right to strike for workers.
Howard's WC legislation will be rushed through Parliament to hide repressive changes. One change is to make legitimate union industrial action 'unlawful'. There are new penal powers and sanctions against striking workers legitimately pursuing, as a last resort, their workplace and economic interests.
'Blueing' is to be even more risky. Will the Australian 'blue' with the boss be an endangered species? Workers and their unions in dispute, those 'blueing', will be liable to be ordered back to work, fined, sued and even criminalised, with increased penalties. Employers who love power and authority will benefit.
Australia is going through a low strike era. Howard did not raise these further restrictions on the right to strike during the election. Corporate associations lobbied Minister Andrews to take away the protections necessary for the effective right to strike.
The government ads say: 'We won't take away the right to strike' but this is 'spin'. Here are 8 further limits on the right to strike. The devil will be in the detail.
1. Minister Andrews himself is to have unbelievable government power to intervene in 'essential services' to halt strikes. This is now possible only through the Industrial Commission or Courts; not the Minister! But his version of 'essential services' is not limited to the army or police, but to cover any corporation and he cites car companies, mining companies and electricity companies. Public sector employment, nurses, teachers and public servants are to be covered. No choice here.
2. New provisions severely restrict basic union rights for industrial action for industry or pattern bargaining. No choice here, as there is no right to strike outside of the single enterprise. Nowhere else in the OECD is pattern or industry or national bargaining unlawful.
3. A small amendment, with wide ramifications, allows third persons affected by industrial action (other than the employer and unions in the dispute) to halt protected legal industrial action. By definition industrial action affects third parties in some way. So other businesses affected or other persons, such as students or patients can stop legitimate union protected bargaining.
4. Unions pursue claims that encourage unionism and many employers agree. Now employers and workers are to be banned from reaching agreement on such claims. No choice here. It is to be unlawful to pursue legitimate workplace matters by industrial action.
5. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which will be all but gutted of its 100-year-old responsibility to prevent and settle disputes, will only have more powers to halt industrial action 'not protected'. Employers can more easily go to the courts for labour injunctions to halt industrial action. Employers retain their power to easily lock-out workers.
6. Compulsory secret ballots have to be conducted before there is lawful protected action. They are now voluntary. The new compulsory ballot requirements are so prescriptively complex that it will be most difficult to implement a valid ballot. In practice this will severely restrict protected action in enterprise bargaining. No choice here. No requirement for employers to compulsorily ballot shareholders before locking out their workforce.
7. The already limited right to protected action is narrowed. Any industrial action that is not protected will be penalisable. All industrial action is prohibited during the life of an agreement. No choice here.
8. WC repeals the requirement for the AIRC to issue a s166A certificate before employers can take common law action to recover damages for unprotected industrial action. The ancient common law tort, based on master and servant doctrine, makes all industrial action unlawful. At least the current limited protection enables 72 hours of conciliation in the Industrial Relations Commission to settle the grievances. Now there is no choice.
The Howard government has already outlawed the right to strike for building and construction unions in legislation slammed through in August and applying retrospectively to catch unions' campaigns. Little debate was allowed in the Senate.
A new building industry police force is operating to 'investigate' workers involved in so-called 'unlawful industrial action'. They have incredible powers. Building workers basic civil rights to silence and not to incriminate yourself have been removed with threat of jail! (details available).
These labour laws do not meet Australia's ILO obligations for protecting the right of workers to collectively bargaining and exercise, without penalty, the right to strike. (Evatt Foundation website http://evatt.org.au/news/336.html )
Will Howard's attempt to suppress strikes be effective? Historically unions took protest industrial action to defend the right to strike. The right to strike as a human right has been long fought for as an essential freedom of being a unionist, for collective bargaining and to defend and promote the social and economic interests of working people and their families.
Eisenhower defended the right to strike because the abolition of such a right is the loss of a freedom. Freedom for industrial action without penalties.
Australia started as a penal colony with penal powers against workers acting in unions. Now in the 21st century penal powers return. This time in a globalised corporate world and a government on the extreme right wing ready to suppress strikes.
Australians do not want to go to the penal days of masters and servants, or slaves, with forced labour.
No choice, no fair go. Will the long tradition of the Australian 'blue' be suppressed? Or will the 'blue' survive?
Chris White 29/10/2005 Flinders University is researching The Right to Strike in Australia? Contact 0418830297 [email protected] References available.
Related:
