NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet is pleased that a Sydney magistrate jailed protester Deanna “Violet” Coco on Friday. But he is out of step with international and Australian human rights and climate change groups and activists, who have quickly mobilised to show solidarity.

On Monday, protests were held in Sydney, Canberra and Perth calling for the release of Coco who blocked one lane of the Sydney Harbour Bridge for half an hour during a morning peak hour in April.

She climbed onto the roof of a truck holding a flare to draw attention to the global climate emergency and Australia’s lack of preparedness for bushfires. Three other members of the group Fireproof Australia, who have not been jailed, held a banner and glued themselves to the road.

Coco pleaded guilty to seven charges, including disrupting vehicles, possessing a flare distress signal in a public place and failing to comply with police direction.

Magistrate Allison Hawkins sentenced Coco to 15 months in prison, with a non-parole period of eight months and fined her $2500. Her lawyer Mark Davis has lodged an appeal which will be heard on March 2, 2023.

Unusually for a non-violent offender, Hawkins refused bail pending an appeal against the sentence. Davis, who will again apply for bail in the District Court next week, said refusal of bail pending appeal was “outrageous”.

Climate change protester sentenced to jail over Sydney Harbour Bridge protest. Video: News 24

‘People shouldn’t be jailed for peaceful protest’
In Sydney, about 100 protesters gathered outside NSW Parliament House and then marched to the Downing Centre. The crowd included members of climate action groups Extinction Rebellion, Knitting Nannas and Fireproof Australia but also others who, while they might not conduct a similar protest themselves, believe in the right of others to do so.

One of the protest organisers, Knitting Nanna Marie Flood, was unable to attend due to illness. Her message called for the release of Coco and an end to the criminalisation and intimidation of climate activists.

It was read by another Knitting Nanna, Eurydice Aroney:

“Nannas have been on Sydney streets protesting about gas and coal mines for about 8 years now. Over that time we’ve had lots of interactions with the Sydney Events police, and not a lot of trouble.

“You could say we are known to the police. We were amused and surprised at the recent climate emergency rally at town hall, when one of the police said to some Nannas that he thought we’d fallen in with the wrong crowd!

“Looks like we better clear some things up.”

“We ARE the crowd who knows that climate action is urgent and it starts with stopping new gas and coal. We know the importance of public protests to bringing about social and political change.

“We will stand up against any move to take away the democratic right to protest. What is happening to Violet Coco is a direct result of the actions of the NSW government with the support of the ALP opposition.”

The message ended with a call to all climate activists: “Now is the time to BE THE CROWD — we can’t afford to fall for attempts to divide the climate movement. We all want to save the climate, and to do that we need to protect democracy.”

The Knitting Nannas have launched a challenge to the validity of the protest laws through the Environmental Defenders’ Office.

Snap rally at NSW Parliament and a march to the courts at the Downing Centre where climate activist Violet Coco was sentenced to 15 months in prison last week.

We demand repeal of the draconian anti-protest laws, an end to new fossil fuel projects and serious climate action now! pic.twitter.com/F1Yxs8L0DG

— Padraic Gibson (@paddygibson) December 5, 2022

One of those attending the protest was Josh Pallas, president of NSW Council for Civil Liberties. Civil Liberties has been defending the right to protest in NSW for more than half a century.

In a media release, he said: “Peaceful protest should never result in jail time. It’s outrageous that the state wastes its resources seeking jail time and housing peaceful protesters in custody at the expense of taxpayers.

“Protesters from Fireproof Australia and other groups have engaged in peaceful protest in support of stronger action on climate change, a proposition that is widely supported by many Australians across the political divide and now finding themselves ending up in prison.

“Peaceful protest sometimes involves inconvenience to the public. But inconvenience is not a sufficient reason to prohibit it. It’s immoral and unjust.”

Deputy Lord Mayor and Greens Councillor Sylvie Ellsmore told the crowd that they had the support of the City of Sydney which recently passed a unanimous motion calling for the repeal of the NSW government’s draconian anti-protest laws.

“If you are a group of businesses in the City of Sydney and you want to close the street for a street party, this state government will give you $50,000. If you are a non-violent protester who cares about climate change and you are blocking one lane of traffic for 25 minutes, they will give you two years [in jail].

“We know these laws are designed to intimidate you… Thank you for being the front line in the fight. you are the ones to put your bodies on the line to protest about issues we all care about, ” she said.

Amnesty International support for democracy
Amnesty International spokesperson Veronica Koman emphasised how important it was to see the defence of democratic rights from a regional perspective. She said that Amnesty was concerned that severe repression of pro-independence activists in West Papua was spreading across to other parts of Indonesia.

She fears the same pattern of increasing repression taking hold in NSW.

Human Rights Watch researcher Sophie McNeil, who has won many awards for her journalism, was another person who was quick to respond.

“Outrageous. Climate activist who blocked traffic on Sydney Harbour Bridge jailed for at least eight months” she tweeted on Friday.

Since then she has followed the issue closely, criticising the ABC for failing to quote a human rights source in its coverage of the court case and speaking at a protest in Perth on Monday.

Today she posted this tweet with a short campaigning #FreeVioletCoco video that has already attracted nearly 13,000 views:

Authorities in #Australia are disproportionately punishing climate activists in violation of their basic rights to peaceful protest

Violet Coco has been sentenced to 15 months in prison

Her crime? A peaceful protest that lasted 25 minutes#FreeVioletCoco @hrw pic.twitter.com/5qhyCWs2fk

— Sophie McNeill (@Sophiemcneill) December 5, 2022

‘If you’re reading this, you’ll know I am in prison’
In jailing Coco, Magistrate Hawkins went out of her way to diminish and delegitimise her protest. She described it as a “childish stunt’ that let an “entire city suffer” through her “selfish emotional action”.

Coco has been involved with climate change protests for more than four years and has been arrested in several other protests. On one occasion, she set light to an empty pram outside Parliament House.

Rather than fight on technicalities, she chosen to plead guilty, knowing that if the magistrate was hostile, she could be taken into custody at the end of Friday’s hearing.

Several steps ahead of her critics, she made a video and wrote a long piece to be published if she went to prison.

The piece begins: ”If you are reading this, then I have been sentenced to prison for peaceful environmental protest. I do not want to break the law. But when regular political procedure has proven incapable of enacting justice, it falls to ordinary people taking a stand to bring about change.”

She describes how her understanding of the facts of climate science and the inadequacy of the current response led her to decide to give up her studies and devote herself to actions that would draw attention to the climate emergency.

“Liberal political philosopher John Rawls asserted that a healthy democracy must have room for this kind of action. Especially in the face of such a threat as billions of lives lost and possibly the collapse of our liveable planet.

“But make no mistake — I do not want to be protesting. Protest work is not fun — it’s stressful, resource-intensive, scary and the police are violent. They refuse to feed me, refused to give me toilet paper and have threatened me with sexual violence.

“I spent three days in the remand centre, which is a disgusting place full of sad people. I do not enjoy breaking the law. I wish that there was another way to address this issue with the gravitas that it deserves.”

She describes how she has already been forced to comply with onerous bail conditions:

“I was under 24 hour curfew conditions for 20 days in a small apartment with no garden. After 20 days effectively under house arrest, my curfew hours changed — at first I could leave the house for only 5 hours a day for the following 58 days, then 6 hours a day under house arrest for the following 68 days.

“This totalled 2017 hours imprisoned in my home for non-violent political engagement in the prevention of many deaths. Cumulatively, that is 84 days or 12 weeks of my freedom.”

Premier Perrottet says he does not object to protest so long as it does not interfere with “our way of life”.

If it does, individuals should have the “book thrown at them.”

His “way of life” is one in which commuters are never held up in traffic by a protest while endlessly sitting in traffic because of governments’ poor transport planning.

A way of life in which it is fine for governments to take years to house people whose lives are destroyed by fires and floods induced by climate change, to allow people to risk death from heat because they cannot afford air conditioners, open more coal and gas operations that will increase carbon emissions and turn a blind eye to millions of climate refugees in the Asia Pacific region.

It involves only protesting when you have permission and in tightly policed zones where passers-by ignore you.

Labor still backs anti-protest laws
Leader of the Opposition Chris Minns also says he has no regrets for supporting the laws which he says were necessary to stop multiple protests.

But laws don’t target multiple actions, they target individuals. He has not raised his voice to condemn police harassment of individual activists even before they protest and bail conditions that breach democratic rights to freedom of assembly.

There was no visible Labor presence at Sydney’s rally.

Perrottet and Minns may be making right wing shock jocks happy but they are out of line with international principles of human rights.

They also fail to acknowledge that many of Australia’s most famous protest movements around land rights, apartheid, Green Bans, womens’ rights, prison reform and environment often involved actions that would have led to arrest under current anti-protest laws.

They display an ignorance of traditions of civil disobedience. As UNSW Professor Luke Macnamara told SBS News: “[V]isibility and disruption have long been the hallmarks of effective protest.”

He believes disruption and protest need to go hand in hand in order to result in tangible change.

“There’s an inherent contradiction in governments telling protesters what are acceptable, passive, non-disruptive means of engaging in protests, when the evidence may well be that those methods have been attempted and have proven to be ineffective,” he said.

“It’s not realistic on the one hand to support the so-called ‘right to protest’, and on the other hand, expect the protest has no disruptive effects. The two go together.”

Wendy Bacon was previously a professor of journalism at the University of Technology Sydney and is an editorial board member of Pacific Journalism Review. She joined the protest. This article was first published by City Hub and is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Seven people have been found guilty of “treason” after raising the banned Morning Star flag in West Papua, a Melanesian region of Indonesia.

In the Jayapura District Court this week, the seven were each jailed for 10 months and fined.

The flag is considered a symbol of the West Papua struggle for independence and has been strictly barred by the Indonesian authorities.

The group, one aged 19 and the others in their 20s, had raised the flag at the Cenderawasih Sports Centre, and although they were not carrying weapons they were convicted of treason.

The Jubi website reported the judge said raising the Morning Star flag and marching while shouting “Free Papua” and “We are not Red and White, we are the Morning Star“, amounted to treason.

And the act of unfurling banners with the words “Self Determination For West Papua, Stop West Papua Militarism” and “Indonesia Immediately Open Access for the UN Human Rights Commission Investigation Team to West Papua” was also considered treason.

‘Intention of separating’
The verdict read “the defendants already have the intention of separating Papua and West Papua from the territory of Indonesia. The defendants have committed the beginning of treason as stipulated in Article 87 of the Criminal Code”.

After the trial, the defendant’s lawyer Emanuel Gobay told Jubi “we firmly reject” the court’s verdict of treason.

During the trial Gobay said no expert witnesses had been presented to explain their perspectives on the charges.

According to Gobay, the conclusions drawn by the panel of judges seemed subjective because there was no information from expert witnesses.

“We question the basis on which the panel of judges concluded the treason. It is as if the panel of judges acted as experts, interpreting and concluding themselves without relying on expert testimony,” Gobay said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s National Court has sent a strong message and warning to those accused of sorcery-related violence when it jailed six people for 40 years each for killing a father and his son in Northern province three years ago.

Acting Judge Camillus Sambua jailed Cameron Jovu, Mike Jofo, Clenty Orotu, Branden Asiko, Andrew Sariko and Jesse Akuma, all from Ambene village in Kokoda, last Thursday for the murder of Bartholomew Umbu and his son Siko.

The six killers had accused Umbo and Siku of practising sorcery.

Defence lawyer Emmanuel Yavisa from the Public Solicitor’s Office submitted that his clients be jailed 20 to 25 years because sorcery was a mitigating factor.

However, state lawyer Solomon Kuku argued that sorcery was not a mitigating factor as it was based on assumptions and not facts.

Kuku submitted that a term of 30 years to life imprisonment should be imposed as the killings were gruesome with disregard for human life.

Judge Samua then jailed all the six 40 years each.

‘Life a gift from God’
“Life is a gift from God,” he said.

“It should be kept sacred as it is very precious.

“The act by the six accused [was] barbaric with no regard to life,” he added.

Cameron Jovu will serve 40 years concurrently for two counts of murder.

Mike Jofo, Clenty Orotu, Smith Asiko and Brendan Asiko, were jailed for one count of murder, while Jesse Akuma and Andrew Sariko, for two counts of murder.

A total of 18 people were accused of being involved in the sorcery-related killing.

Eleven were acquitted on Tuesday.

Those acquitted were Emmanuel Koviro, Humphrey Konene, Bobby Jovu, Timothy Jofo, Howard Pou, Zebedee Akuma, Frank Johnson, Loide Koiko Sawa, Smith Ariko, Tadiu Roko and Robert Jovu.

Clarissa Moi is a reporter for The National. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A high school student is one of three people — including his two brothers — who has been sentenced to 12 months in prison for breaching a Solomon Islands trial covid-19 lockdown late last month.

The 18-year-old was sentenced by a magistrates court on Wednesday with his older brothers after pleading guilty to one count of restriction of movement contrary to clause 4 (1) and (2) (a) and (b) of the Emergency Powers (COVID-19) (Honiara Emergency Zone) (Restriction of Movement) Order 2021 and Regulation 15 (1) (a), (2) and (4) of the Emergency Powers (COVID-19) (No. 2) Regulation 2021.

The court heard police had arrested the student and two other young men after attending a report of disturbances in the early hours of Monday, August 30, at Vavaya Ridge.

Police went to Vavaya Ridge at 2.45am and saw the three defendants on the main road main road.

Their lawyer, Donation Houa, from the Public Solicitor’s Office had told the court the student was drinking with his two brothers at his brother’s house before the lockdown exercise started at 6pm on Sunday, August 29.

“On his return home round 2am from his brother’s house, he was arrested,” Houa told the court.

He had asked the court to consider section 35 of the Penal Code (PC) to impose an unconditional discharge given that he was a student and that doing so would affect his education and future prospects.

‘I will not accept excuses’
However, principal magistrate Augustine Aulanga did not consider section 35 of the Penal Code when imposing the sentence.

“I will not accept those kinds of excuses,” he said.

“You are a student, you drink alcohol and then you commit an offence and then you plead to the court for mercy — I will not accept that,” Aulanga told the student.

In relation to the second defendant, the court heard that the 25-year-old was out looking for cigarettes when he was arrested.

“The reason why he was arrested was that he was away from his home looking for cigarettes,” Houa told the court.

The third defendant went out to the main road from his residence after hearing some boys drinking and they gave him alcohol.

“He took a sip and that’s when police arrived and arrested him,” Houa said, when he explained in court why his client was not home at the time of the offence.

Prosecution wanted a fine
The lawyer also asked the court to consider when imposing sentence that there was no community transmission and that this was an exercise lockdown.

The prosecution had asked court to impose a fine of $300 or a term of imprisonment term equivalent to $300 if the defendants could not pay the fine.

Crown Prosecutor Geitaba Waletofea asked court to consider the fact that the three young men deliberately breached the movement restrictions despite knowing about the lockdown.

She said the men decided to ignore the law and continue to cause a disturbance.

Waletofea also added that although she understood that the virus was not yet in the Solomon Islands, the government had seen fit to impose such laws to help prepare foer the virus, and to know how to contain it in the future.

Magistrate Aulanga imposed a 12 month imprisonment term for each defendant.

The three defendants were among 32 people arrested during the 36 hour lockdown exercise from 6am, Sunday, August 29, to 6pm, Tuesday, August 31.

Assumpta Buchanan is a Solomon Star reporter.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

There is no death penalty in New Zealand, unlike the United States. But Christchurch terrorist Brenton Tarrant, due for sentencing this week, will be going to jail for a very long time.

A minimum of 17 years is required for a murder committed as part of a terrorist act, and Tarrant has admitted to 51 such murders (among other crimes).

Also unlike the US, New Zealand does not allow cumulative sentences on indeterminate sentences (such as life imprisonment). But it does allow for the imposition of what could become an indeterminate sentence with no minimum parole period.

READ MORE: Will life mean life when the Christchurch mosque killer is sentenced?

To lock Tarrant up in perpetuity will be very expensive. He is currently costing just over NZ$4,930 a day due to the extra levels of security, considerably more than the average of about $338 for a standard prisoner.

The next two years alone will cost New Zealand taxpayers about $3.6 million. The final sum for the 28-year-old terrorist will depend on how long he lives and the ongoing level of security he requires. If he has a normal life span the cost may be in the tens of millions per decade.

Should he stay or go?
In the minds of many, the costs and hassle of incarcerating Tarrant will be an acceptable price to pay. Foreign citizen or not, there is a symbolic and ethical responsibility for us to keep the rat we caught.

New Zealanders old enough to remember are still jaundiced from the last time we caught terrorists, the French secret agents Dominque Prieur and Alain Mafart who were directly linked to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985.

The two were handed back to France as part of a reconciliation deal. But the French government quickly broke the terms of agreement, repatriating the prisoners from their detention on the South Pacific atoll of Hao to a normal life in France.

Another such act of bad faith is unlikely, as Tarrant has no government in his corner arguing for his repatriation. He does, however, have a government behind him that has implemented specific legislation to obtain the transfer of its own citizens when incarcerated in foreign countries, to serve their sentences on home soil.

This is not unusual legislation. Although there is no overarching international law, regional and bilateral initiatives are common. Australia’s International Transfer of Prisoners Act, for example, aims to facilitate the transfer of prisoners between Australia and countries with which it has agreements.

Prisoners can serve their prison sentences in their country of nationality or in countries with which they have community ties. There are strong economic, social and humanitarian reasons for this approach.

The deportation of ex-prisoners will increase
Here is the catch. New Zealand has no such relationship with Australia. Unlike most comparable countries, we have little interest in the international transfer of prisoners, preferring to take a hard line when it comes to Kiwis in foreign jails.

Partly because of this, since 2014 Australia has allowed non-citizens to have their visas cancelled on character grounds, including having been sentenced to prison for more than 12 months.

So, although New Zealand prisoners in Australian jails may not be transferred to serve their sentences at home, they will be deported at the end of their sentences.

From early 2015 to mid-2018, about 1,300 New Zealander ex-prisoners had been deported from Australia. After a brief interlude due to covid-19, the deportations resumed.

It is no exaggeration to say this policy (and the cruel standards by which it is applied) are a significant irritant between the two countries.

If it doesn’t change it’s likely to get worse, too. As of mid-2019, New Zealand prisoners made up 3 percent of the total Australian prisoner population (43,028) – about 1,100 people.

Conversely, there were only about 35 Australians in our jails, out of about 320 foreigners in New Zealand’s much smaller prison population (9,324 as of March, 2019).

Time for new deal on expat prisoners
Somewhere in the middle of this darkness there is a glimmer of hope – the chance of a deal and a better relationship between the two countries.

Sign a prisoner transfer agreement. Exchange Tarrant and make him serve out his sentence in Australia, as ruled by the New Zealand judicial system.

Revise the rules for the deportation of New Zealanders who have committed crimes in Australia but been resident for a long time. Move the threshold for deportation from one to three years in prison and make it reciprocal.

Thereafter, recent arrivals in either country who commit serious crimes (such as Brenton Tarrant) are transferred home to serve their time in accordance with their sentences.

Do this and we might start to move forward.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, at the University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz