Every week, health prevailing, I march with our Palestinian friends and their supporters in Aotearoa New Zealand. And my country is one which — under Britain — was colonised.

Colonisation perpetrates injustices against indigenous people. This legacy is still felt by Indigenous people today.

All around the world we must dismantle our unfair systems. A fair system ensures that everyone has a flourishing start in life. But our systems are linked to Israel — and Israel demonstrates that colonisation is still practised.

Israel headed by megalomaniacs ruling with a muscular thug army is proof that the Empire has not stopped because the Western Empire has supported this.

Far too many Western journalists report from the perspective of the abuser rather than the victims. They need to ask, “what if it was my child, my wife, my mother, my brother, my grandfather, suffering like this? What if I was forced from my home?”

Journalists must report from the perspective of people who are pleading for the right to breathe rather than reporting from the perspective of the landlord killing people when they resist eviction.

They must use their imagination to exercise empathy in reporting. Only then will they report the truth and only then will the real narrative emerge.

Colonisation unchecked
Colonisation is not checked, rather it is supported by countries engaged in Empire building.

Like South Africa under apartheid, Indigenous people are oppressed and if they resist they are dispensed with, in other words, exterminated.

But this system is enabled rather than disabled. The rampant megalomania is enabled by the US, Britain, Germany, and other nations.

Tens of thousands of children, women, and men have been robbed of life and the journalists I once worked alongside in conflict zones are complicit if they do not report this as a human rights atrocity.

We — journalists — must report on the evil that is the expansion of empire and we must report on it from the perspective of the victims not the perpetrators.

The extermination of Palestinians and expansion of Israel is clearly supported by the legs of the octopus — the countries that make up this Western Empire.

Standing by and reporting from anything other than the perspective of the victims is akin to standing by and watching slaves being bound, gagged and shipped under the name of empire.

Journalists must stand up and report with the moral courage of abolitionists. They must have the gumption to attack the rotten policies practiced in our own time.

Saige England is an award-winning journalist and author of The Seasonwife, a novel exploring the brutal impacts of colonisation. She is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Epstein Files were never just about one man.

Jeffrey Epstein didn’t operate in a vacuum. His crimes were grotesque, systematic, and, crucially, protected for decades. That alone should unsettle anyone who believes power is held accountable.

What’s disturbing isn’t only what he did, but what didn’t happen afterwards.

How does a trafficker move across borders, fly politicians and royalty, launder wealth, avoid serious prosecution for years, and then conveniently die in a high-security facility with cameras malfunctioning and guards “asleep”?

That’s not a coincidence. That’s institutional failure at best, complicity at worst.

The real scandal is the silence.

Names were known. Networks were hinted at. Evidence existed. Yet accountability stopped at Epstein himself, the perfect firewall.

How power protects itself
Once he was gone, so was the urgency. Files sealed. Investigations stalled. Media interest redirected.

This is how power protects itself.

Whether you call it the Deep State, the ruling class, elite immunity, or simply entrenched systems of power, the pattern is familiar:

The powerful are insulated, the truth is managed, and justice is selective.

Epstein wasn’t an anomaly. He was a symptom.

And until transparency replaces secrecy, and accountability reaches upward instead of downward, the question will remain:

Who was Epstein really working for?

And who benefited most from him never speaking?

Maher Khalil Nazzal is a Muslim Palestinian refugee living in Auckland and co-chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

When Iraqi troops attacked the Saudi border town of Khafji during the first Gulf War, Saudi soldiers fled in panic. Two French photographers and I watched frantic soldiers commandeering fire trucks and racing south. US Marines pushed the Iraqis back.

But in Riyadh, the press was told of our gallant Saudi allies defending their homeland. Once fighting ended, the press bus stopped a few miles down the road from Khafji. The pool reporters clambered out, escorted by military minders. They did stand-ups with the distant sound of artillery and smoke as a backdrop and repeated the lies the Pentagon wanted to tell.

Meanwhile, the two photographers and I were detained and beaten by enraged Saudi military police, furious that we had documented the panicked flight of Saudi forces, as we tried to leave Khafji.

My refusal to abide by press restrictions in the first Gulf War saw the other New York Times reporters in Saudi Arabia write a letter to the foreign editor saying I was ruining the paper’s relationship with the military. If not for the intervention of R.W. “Johnny” Apple, who had covered Vietnam, I would have been sent back to New York.

I do not fault anyone for not wanting to go into a war zone. This is a sign of normality. It is rational. It is understandable. Those of us who volunteer to go into combat — my colleague Clyde Haberman at The New York Times once quipped “Hedges will parachute into a war with or without a parachute” — have obvious personality defects.

Pretend war correspondents
But I fault those who pretend to be war correspondents. They do tremendous damage. They peddle false narratives. They mask reality. They serve as witting — or unwitting — propagandists. They discredit the voices of the victims and exonerate the killers.

When I covered the war in El Salvador, before I worked for The New York Times, the paper’s correspondent dutifully regurgitated whatever the embassy fed her. This had the effect of making my editors — as well as editors of the other correspondents who did report the war– question our veracity and “impartiality.”

It made it harder for readers to understand what was happening. The false narrative neutered and often overpowered the real one.

The slander used to discredit my Palestinian colleagues — claiming they are members of Hamas — is sadly familiar. Many Palestinian reporters I know in Gaza are, in fact, quite critical of Hamas. But even if they have ties with Hamas, so what?

Israel’s attempt to justify targeting journalists from the Hamas-run al-Aqsa media network is also a violation of Article 79 of the Geneva Convention.

I worked with reporters and photographers who had a wide variety of beliefs, including Marxist-Leninists in Central America. This did not prevent them from being honest. I was in Bosnia and Kosovo with a Spanish cameraman, Miguel Gil Moreno, who was later killed with my friend Kurt Schork.

Miguel was a member of the right-wing Catholic group Opus Dei. He was also a journalist of tremendous courage, great compassion and moral probity, despite his opinions about Spain’s fascist ruler Francisco Franco. He did not lie.

Seeking to crush
In every war I covered, I was attacked as supporting or belonging to whatever group the government, including the US government, was seeking to crush. I was accused of being a tool of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front in El Salvador, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity, the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, Hamas, the Muslim-led government in Bosnia and the Kosovo Liberation Army.

John Simpson of the BBC, like many Western reporters, argues that the “world needs honest, unbiased eyewitness reporting to help people make up their minds about the major issues of our time. This has so far been impossible in Gaza.”

The assumption that if Western reporters were in Gaza the coverage would improve is risible. Trust me. It would not.

Israel bans the foreign press because there is a bias in Europe and the United States in favour of reporting by Western reporters. Israel is aware that the scale of the genocide is too vast for Western outlets to hide or obscure, despite all the ink and airtime they give to Israeli and US apologists.

Israel also cannot continue its systematic campaign of annihilation of journalists in Gaza if it has to contend with foreign media in its midst.

Israeli lies amplified by Western media outlets, including my former employer The New York Times, are worthy of Pravda. Beheaded babies. Babies cooked in ovens. Mass rape by Hamas. Errant Palestinian rockets that cause explosions at hospitals and massacre civilians. Secret command tunnels and command centers in schools and hospitals. Journalists who direct Hamas rocket units. Protesters of the genocide on college campuses who are antisemites and supporters of Hamas.

Israel ‘lies like it breathes’
I covered the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis, much of that time in Gaza, for seven years. If there is one indisputable fact, it is that Israel lies like it breathes. The decision by Western reporters to give credibility to these lies, to give them the same weight as documented Israeli atrocities, is a cynical game.

The reporters know these lies are lies. But they, and the news outlets that employ them, prize access — in this case access to Israeli and US officials — above truth. The reporters, as well as their editors and publishers, fear becoming targets of Israel and the powerful Israel lobby.

There is no cost for betraying the Palestinians. They are powerless.

Call those lies out and you will swiftly find your requests for briefings and interviews with officials rebuffed. You won’t be invited by press officers to participate in staged visits to Israeli military units. You and your news organisation will be viciously attacked.

You will be left out in the cold. Your editors will terminate your assignment or your employment. This is not good for careers. And so, the lies are dutifully repeated, no matter how absurd.

It is pathetic watching these reporters and their news outlets, as Fisk writes, fight “like tigers to join these ‘pools’ in which they would be censored, restrained and deprived of all freedom of movement on the battlefield”.

When Middle East Eye journalists Mohamed Salama and Ahmed Abu Aziz, along with Reuters photojournalist Hussam al-Masri, and freelancers Moaz Abu Taha, and Mariam Dagga — who had worked with several media outlets, including the Associated Press — were killed in a “double tap” strike — designed to kill first responders arriving to treat casualties from initial strikes — at Nasser Medical Complex, how did Western news agencies respond?

‘Hamas camera’
“Israeli military says strikes on Gaza hospital targeted what it says was a Hamas camera,” the Associated Press reported.

“IDF claims hospital strike was aimed at Hamas camera,” announced CNN.

“Israel army says six ‘terrorists’ killed in Monday strikes on Gaza hospital,” the AFP headline read.

“Initial inquiry says Hamas camera was target of Israeli strike that killed journalists,” Reuters said.

“Israel claims troops saw Hamas camera before deadly hospital attack,” Sky News explained.

Just for the record, the camera belonged to Reuters, which said Israel was “fully aware” the news agency was filming from the hospital.

When Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif and three other journalists were killed on August 10 in their media tent near al-Shifa Hospital, how was it reported in the Western press?

Pulitzer prize-winner
“Israel Kills Al Jazeera Journalist It Says Was Hamas Leader,” Reuters titled its story, despite the fact al-Sharif was part of a Reuters team that won a 2024 Pulitzer Prize.

The German newspaper Bild, published a front page story headlined: “Terrorist disguised as a journalist killed in Gaza.”

The barrage of Israeli lies amplified and given credibility by the Western press violates a fundamental tenet of journalism, the duty to transmit the truth to the viewer or reader.

It legitimizes mass slaughter. It refuses to hold Israel to account. It betrays Palestinian journalists, those reporting and being killed in Gaza. And it exposes the bankruptcy of Western journalists, whose primary attributes are careerism and cowardice.

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report”. This article is republished from his X account.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

The mass atrocity in Gaza is a genocide, obviously, and is an undisguised ethnic cleansing operation.

But it’s also a lot more than that.

It’s an experiment  —  to see what kinds of abuses the public will accept without causing significant disruption to the imperial status quo.

It’s a psychological operation  –  to push out the boundaries of what’s normal and acceptable in our minds so that we will consent to even more horrific abuses in the future.

It’s a symptom  —  of Zionism, of colonialism, of militarism, of capitalism, of Western supremacism, of empire-building, of propaganda, of ignorance, of apathy, of delusion, of ego.

It’s a manifestation  —  of violent racist, supremacist and xenophobic belief systems that have always been there but were previously restrained, meeting with the unwholesome nature of alliances that have long been in place but have been aggressively normalised.

It’s a mirror  —– showing us accurately and impartially who we currently are as a civilisation.

It’s a genocide …                                                Video: Caitlin Johnstone

It’s a disclosure  —  showing us what the Western empire we live under really is underneath its fake plastic mask of liberal democracy and righteous humanitarianism.

It’s a revelation  –  showing us who among us really stands for truth and justice and who has been deceiving us about themselves and their motives this entire time.

It’s a catalyst  –  a galvanising force and a rallying cry for all who realise that the murderous power structures we live under can no longer be allowed to stand, and a blaring alarm clock opening more and more snoozing eyes to the need for revolutionary change.

It’s a test  –  of who we are as a species and what we are made of, and of whether we can transcend the destructive patterning that is driving humanity to its doom.

It’s a question  — asking us what kind of world we want to live in going forward, and what kind of people we want to be.

It’s an invitation  —  to become something better than what we are now.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

Only four days have passed since his election to the papacy, and Pope Leo XIV has made it a point to hold an audience with the men and women who were in Rome to report on the death of Pope Francis, the conclave, and the first days of his own ministry.

He met media professionals in the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall yesterday, and thanked reporters in Italian for their tireless work over these intense few weeks.

The newly-elected Pope began his remarks with a call for communication to foster peace by caring for how people and events are presented.

He invited media professionals to promote a different kind of communication, one that “does not seek consensus at all costs, does not use aggressive words, does not follow the culture of competition, and never separates the search for truth from the love with which we must humbly seek it.”

“The way we communicate is of fundamental importance,” he said. “We must say ‘no’ to the war of words and images; we must reject the paradigm of war.”

Solidarity with persecuted journalists
The Pope went on to reaffirm the Church’s solidarity with journalists who have been imprisoned for reporting the truth, and he called for their release.

He said their suffering reminded the world of the importance of the freedom of expression and the press, adding that “only informed individuals can make free choices”.

Service to the truth
Pope Leo XIV then thanked reporters for their service to the truth, especially their work to present the Church in the “beauty of Christ’s love” during the recent interregnum period.

He commended their work to put aside stereotypes and clichés, in order to share with the world “the essence of who we are”.

Pope Leo XIV calls for release of journalists imprisoned for ‘seeking truth’   Video: France 24

Our times, he continued, present many issues that were difficult to recount and navigate, noting that they called each of us to overcome mediocrity.

Facing the challenges of our times
“The Church must face the challenges posed by the times,” he said. “In the same way, communication and journalism do not exist outside of time and history.

“Saint Augustine reminds of this when he said, ‘Let us live well, and the times will be good. We are the times’.”

Pope Leo XIV said the modern world could leave people lost in a “confusion of loveless languages that are often ideological or partisan.”

The media, he said, must take up the challenge to lead the world out of such a “Tower of Babel,” through the words we use and the style we adopt.

“Communication is not only the transmission of information,” he said, “but it is also the creation of a culture, of human and digital environments that become spaces for dialogue and discussion.”

AI demands responsibility and discernment
Pointing to the spread of artificial intelligence, the Pope said AI’s “immense potential” required “responsibility and discernment in order to ensure that it can be used for the good of all, so that it can benefit all of humanity”.

Pope Leo XIV also repeated Pope Francis’ message for the 2025 World Day of Social Communication.

“Let us disarm communication of all prejudice and resentment, fanaticism and even hatred,” he said. “Let us disarm words, and we will help disarm the world.”

The Paris-based global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) welcomed the Pope’s commitment and has issued five concrete recommendations to the new head of the Catholic Church and Vatican City.

As censorship, misinformation and violence against journalists are on the rise worldwide, RSF has called on the Holy See to maintain a strong, committed voice for press freedom and the protection of journalists everywhere.

“The fact that one of Pope Leo XIV’s first speeches addressed press freedom and the protection of journalists sends a strong signal to news professionals around the world. RSF salutes Pope Leo XIV’s commitment to press freedom and calls on him to build on his declaration with concrete actions to promote the right to information,” said RSF director-generalThibaut Bruttin.

In his first Sunday noon blessing, Pope Leo XIV called for genuine peace in Ukraine and an immediate ceasefire in Israel’s war on Gaza.

“No more war,” the pontiff said, adding a warning against “the dramatic scenario of a third world war being fought piecemeal.”

Devin Watkins writes for Vatican News. Republished under Creative Commons.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

One thing October 7 did accomplish was getting Israel and its allies to show the world their true face. Getting them to stand before all of humanity to say, “If you resist us, we’ll kill your babies. We’ll deliberately shoot your kids in the head.

“We’ll massacre medical workers. We’ll systematically destroy all your hospitals. We’ll rape you and torture you as a matter of policy.

“We’ll lay siege to the entire civilian population. We’ll make your entire land uninhabitable and then we’ll kick you all out and take it for ourselves.

“We’ll assassinate all your journalists and block foreign journalists from entry so that nobody can see what we’re doing to you.

“We’ll lie about all of these things the entire time, and you’ll know we’re lying, and we’ll know you know we’re lying, and you’ll know we know you know we’re lying.

“And we’ll get away with it anyway, because we hold all the cards.”

Sometimes I’ll run into people who say “What did Hamas expect to happen? They had to know Israel would do this!” They say this in an effort to lay the blame for Israel’s genocidal atrocities at the feet of Hamas, as though Israel is some kind of wild animal who can’t be held accountable for its actions if someone gets too close to its mouth.

But of course Hamas knew Israel and its allies would react this way. Of course they did.

They knew they were dealing with a murderous and tyrannical civilisation that is capable of limitless evil and doesn’t see Palestinians as human beings. They knew it because they’d lived under it all their lives.

That is the problem they were trying to address with their actions on October 7.

Palestine has single handedly unmasked the world

— Rahma (@Rahmazeinegypt) April 6, 2025

You can disagree with the decisions Hamas made on that day. You can say they should have used other means to pursue justice. You can denounce them, hate them, do the whole public ritual necessary for mainstream acceptance in Western society.

But one thing you can’t do is deny that Israel and its allies have been revealing their true face to the world every day since, at levels they previously were not.

It’s all fully visible now. It’s all right there on the surface. We can try to continue pretending we live in a free society that believes in truth and justice and regards all people as equal, but we’ll all know it’s a lie.

What we are, first and foremost, is a civilisation that will actively support history’s first live-streamed genocide. That’s the single most relevant fact about the Western world at this point in history. It’s staring us right in the face every day.

Hamas succeeded in exposing the true face of the empire.    Video: Caitlin Johnstone

October 7 certainly didn’t make life any easier for the Palestinians, but one thing it did do was take away our ability to hide from ourselves.

Hamas reached thousands of kilometres around the world and permanently destroyed our ability to avoid the truth about the kind of dystopia we are really living in.

Our rulers may succeed in eliminating the Palestinians as a people, but one thing they will never be able to do is put those blinders back on our eyes.

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

The Age has revealed the dismissal of ABC broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf last December 20 was the nasty fruit of a campaign waged against chair Ita Buttrose and managing director David Anderson.

The official reason for Lattouf’s dismissal was ordinary: she shared a post by Human Rights Watch about Israel “using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza”, calling it “a war crime”.

It also noted the express intention of Israeli officials to pursue this strategy. Actions were also documented: the deliberate blocking of food, water and fuel “while wilfully obstructing the entry of aid”.

Lattouf shared it after management directed staff not to post on “matters of controversy”.

Prior to The Age revelations, much had been made of Lattouf’s fill-in role as a radio presenter — which was intended for five shows.

The Australian, owned by News Corp, had issues with Lattouf’s statements on various online platforms. It found it strange in December that she was appointed “despite her very public anti-Israel stance”.

She was accused of denying that some protesters had called for Jews to be gassed outside the Sydney Opera House on October 7. She also dared to accuse the Israeli Defence Forces of committing rape.

Leaked messages from a WhatsApp group called ‘Lawyers for Israel’ indicate that Australia’s public broadcaster – ABC – might have been lobbied into firing journalist Antoinette Lattouf.@meenakshirv reports. pic.twitter.com/1Nfl2kEDx6

— The Listening Post (@AJListeningPost) January 19, 2024

‘Lot of people really upset’
It was considered odd that she discussed food and water shortages in Gaza and “an advertising campaign showing corpses reminiscent of being wrapped in Muslim burial cloths”. That “left a lot of people really upset’,” The Australian said.

If war is hell, Lattouf was evidently not allowed to go into quite so much detail about it — at least concerning the fate of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli war machine.

What has also come to light is that the ABC’s managers were not targeting Lattouf on their own. Pressure had been exercised from outside the media organisation.

According to The Age, WhatsApp messages by a group called “Lawyers for Israel” had been sent to the ABC as part of a coordinated campaign.

Sydney property lawyer Nicky Stein told members of that group to contact the federal Minister for Communications asking “how Antoinette is hosting the morning ABC Sydney show” the day Lattouf was sacked.

They said employing Lattouff breached Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice on “impartiality”.

Stein went on to insist that: “It’s important ABC hears from not just individuals in the community but specifically from lawyers so they feel there is an actual legal threat.”

No ‘generic’ response
She goes on to say that a “proper” rather than “generic” response was expected “by COB [close of business] today or I would look to engage senior counsel”.

Did such threats have any basis? Even Stein admits: “There is probably no actionable offence against the ABC but I didn’t say I would be taking one — just investigating one. I have said that they should be terminating her employment immediately.”

It was designed to attract attention from ABC chairperson Ita Buttrose, and it did.

Robert Goot, deputy president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and part of the same group, boasted of information he had received that Lattouf would be “gone from morning radio from Friday” because of her “anti-Israeli” stance.

There has been something of a journalistic exodus from the ABC of late.

Nour Haydar, a political reporter in the ABC’s Parliament House bureau and another journalist of Lebanese descent, resigned on January 12 citing concern about the ABC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza.

There had been, for instance, the creation of a “Gaza advisory panel” at the behest of ABC news director Justin Stevens, ostensibly to improve coverage.

Journalists need to ‘take a stand’ over the Gaza carnage after latest killings

Must not ‘take sides’
“Accuracy and impartiality are core to the service we offer audiences,” Stevens told staff. “We must stay independent and not ‘take sides’.”

This pointless assertion can only ever be a threat because it acts as an injunction on staff and a judgment against sources that do not favour the line, however credible they might be.

What proves acceptable, a condition that seems to have paralysed the ABC, is to never say that Israel massacres, commits war crimes and brings about conditions approximating genocide.

Little wonder then that coverage of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice does not get top billing on the ABC.

Palestinians and Palestinian militias, however, can always be described as savages, rapists and baby slayers. Throw in fanaticism and Islam and you have the complete package ready for transmission.

Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media of most Western countries, as the late Robert Fisk pointed out, repeatedly asserts these divisions.

After her resignation, Haydar told the Sydney Morning Herald: “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep.  Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo.”

#NoFearNoFavour https://t.co/JXq9TiI6Zu

— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 16, 2024

Sharing divisive topics
Haydar’s argument about cultural diversity should not obscure the broader problem facing the ABC: policing the way opinions and material on war, and any other divisive topic, is shared with the public.

The issue goes less to cultural diversity than permitted intellectual breadth.

Lattouf, for her part, is pursuing remedies through the Fair Work Commission and seeking funding through a GoFundMe page, steered by Lauren Dubois.

“We stand with Antoinette and support the rights of workers to be able to share news that expresses an opinion or reinforces a fact, without fear of retribution.”

Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, expressed his displeasure at Lattouf’s treatment, suggesting the ABC had erred.

ABC’s senior management, via a statement from Anderson, preferred the route of craven denial. He rejected “any claim that it has been influenced by any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity”.

Dr Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in global studies at RMIT University, Melbourne. This article was first published by Green Left Magazine and is republished here with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Many different arguments for and against the Voice to Parliament have been heard in the lead-up to this year’s referendum in Australia. This has included some media and politicians drawing comparisons between the Voice and South Africa’s apartheid regime.

Cory Bernardi, a Sky News commentator, argued, for instance, that by implementing the Voice, “we’re effectively announcing an apartheid-type state, where some citizens have more legal rights or more rights in general than others”.

As legal scholar Bede Harris has pointed out, it’s quite clear Bernardi doesn’t understand apartheid. He said,

How the Voice could be described as creating such a system is unfathomable.

Comparisons to apartheid
Apartheid was a system of racial segregation implemented by the South African government to control and restrict the lives of the non-white populations, and to stop them from voting.

During apartheid, non-white people could not freely visit the same beaches, live in the same neighbourhoods, attend the same schools or queue in the same lines as white people. My wife recalls her white parents being questioned by police after visiting the home of a Black colleague.

The proposed Voice will ensure First Nations peoples have their views heard by Parliament.

It won’t have the power to stop people swimming at the same beaches or living, studying or shopping together. It won’t stop interracial marriages as the apartheid regime did. It doesn’t give anybody extra political rights.

It simply provides First Nations people, who have previously had no say in developing the country’s system of government, with an opportunity to participate in a way that many say is meaningful and respectful.

Apartheid and the Voice are polar opposites. The Voice is a path towards democratic participation, while apartheid eliminated any opportunity for this.

Evoking emotional responses, like Bernardi attempted to do, can inspire people to quickly align with a political cause that moderation and reason might not encourage. This means opinions may be formed from limited understanding and misinformation.

🗣️ “Whether you vote yes or no in the coming referendum, your choice deserves respect.” #CharlesSturtUni constitutional law expert has challenged claims made by a SKY TV host likening the proposed Voice to Parliament to an apartheid-type state.https://t.co/EePzMcIksO

— Charles Sturt University (@CharlesSturtUni) May 9, 2023

Misinformation doesn’t stop at apartheid comparisons
The Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative lobby group, has published a “research” paper claiming the Voice would be like New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal and be able to veto decisions of the Parliament.

The truth is the tribunal is not a “Maori Voice to Parliament”. It can’t veto Parliament.

The Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry. It is chaired by a judge and has Māori and non-Māori membership. Its job is to investigate alleged breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The tribunal’s task is an independent search for truth. When it upholds a claim, its recommended remedies become the subject of political negotiation between government and claimants.

The Voice in Australia would make representations to Parliament. This is also not a veto. A veto is to stop Parliament making a law.

We need to raise the quality of debate
Unlike the apartheid and Waitangi arguments, many objections to the Voice are grounded in fact.

Making representations to Parliament and the government is a standard and necessary democratic practice. There are already many ways of doing this, but in the judgment of the First Nations’ people who developed the Voice proposal, a constitutionally enshrined Voice would be a better way of making these representations.

Many people disagree with this judgment. The National Party argues a Voice won’t actually improve people’s lives.

Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe says she speaks for a Black Sovereignty movement when she advocates for a treaty to come first. The argument is that without a treaty, the system of government isn’t morally legitimate.

Other people support the Voice in principle but think it will have too much power; others think it won’t have enough.

Thinking about honest differences of opinion helps us to understand and critique a proposal for what it is, rather than what it is not. Our vote then stands a better chance of reflecting what we really think.

Lies can mask people’s real reasons for holding a particular point of view. When people’s true reasons can’t be scrutinised and tested, it prevents an honest exchange of ideas.

Collective wisdom can’t emerge, and the final decision doesn’t demonstrate each voter’s full reflection on other perspectives.

Altering the Constitution is very serious, and deliberately difficult to do. Whatever the referendum’s outcome, confidence in our collective judgment is more likely when truth and reason inform our debate.

In my recently published book, Indigeneity, Culture and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, I argue the Voice could contribute to a more just and democratic system of government through ensuring decision-making is informed by what First Nations’ people want and why.

Informed, also, by deep knowledge of what works and why.

People may agree or disagree. But one thing is clear: deliberate misinformation doesn’t make a counter argument. It diminishes democracy.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan,  adjunct professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and professor of political science, Charles Sturt University.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch

As Russia’s propaganda and crackdown on journalism continue to wreak havoc, the Paris-based global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has released its new campaign video.

Devised and produced by the Paris-based advertising agency BETC, this powerful video takes just a few seconds to demonstrate the importance of journalism in combatting propaganda.

In the new video, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s mendacious speeches to the Russian people about the invasion of Ukraine are contrasted with images of reporters covering the war.

Only the facts reported by journalists can thwart the Kremlin’s propaganda. Like the #FightForFacts campaign video that RSF released at the end of 2020, this new video aims to get viewers to appreciate the importance of journalism in raising awareness and in motivating the public about issues that are decisive for their future.

RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said:

“Without journalists to cover the war in Ukraine, we would be powerless against disinformation and propaganda, we wouldn’t know whether the bombing of civilians in Ukraine was true or false, or whether the Bucha massacres really took place.

“After the world was stunned by the war in Ukraine, RSF wants to raise awareness about the other war being waged by the Kremlin, the information war.

Eight journalists have been killed in Ukraine since the start of the war.

In the occupied territories, journalists are hunted down, arrested and given an impossible choice: collaboration, prison or death.

From day one, RSF teams mobilised. In Lviv and Kyiv, press freedom centres set up by RSF provide protective equipment, first aid kits, digital safety training and psychological support to both Ukrainian and foreign journalists covering the war.

This campaign video is intended to help RSF raise part of the funds it needs to continue its work in Ukraine and the rest of the world.

Targeted at the general public, it is being carried by TV channels, shared on social media and available to all websites that want it.

And it is available in 13 languages (French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Swedish, Romanian, Azeri, traditional Chinese, simplified Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Mongolian).

The video was produced by and with the support of the BETC agency.

About BETC
An ad agency created in 1994, BETC was named Adweek’s International Agency of the Year in 2019 as well as the Effie Agency of the Year for the second year running.

BETC looks to renew the relationship between brands and creation.

Out of desire, curiosity and commitment, BETC creates new synergies and produces its own content in the fields of music, film, publishing, design… BETC is at the heart of the Magasins Généraux project in Pantin, where it moved in July 2016.

It is a new space for creation, innovation, production and sharing that is located at the heart of Greater Paris.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Indonesia’s Setara Institute for Peace and Democracy says that the presidential decree (Keppres) on the formation of a team for the non-judicial resolution of past gross human rights violations — signed recently by President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo — will reinforce impunity and absolve perpetrators of past human rights violations.

According to Setara Institute chairperson Hendardi, the Keppres shows that Widodo is unable to or unwilling to resolve past human rights cases, reports CNN Indonesia.

“The Setara Institute views the formation of the ‘PAHAM Team’ as just a project to reinforce impunity and to whitewash past human rights violations which have not yet been fully resolved by the state”, said Hendardi.

Based on the draft Keppres which is circulating, Hendardi said that the membership of a team formed by Widodo is made up of people who are considered problematic in terms of past human rights violations.

According to Hendardi, instead of dealing with cases of human rights violations in accordance with the mandate of Law Number 26/2000 on Human Rights Courts, Widodo has instead closed the door firmly on public demands and the hopes of victims for truth and justice.

He also said that the formation of the team would impact upon the search for truth and fulfilling the rights of the victims and the public because a judicial resolution becomes optional.

“Because the non-judicial option has been decided on, Jokowi is actually negating the mandate of Law Number 26/2000 which states that the resolution of human rights violations which occurred before 2000 can be tried through an ad hoc human rights court”, said Hendardi.

Hendardi believes that this non-judicial mechanism is a form of mass amnesty and the state washing its hands of the issue.

The “PAHAM Team” is just a committee formed by Widodo to give the appearance of sympathy with the victims while the aim is to silence their demands and aspirations, according to Hendardi.

“Yet under international human rights law and the concept of transitional justice it is not just the right reparation that must be fulfilled, but also the right to truth, the right to justice and guarantees of non-repetition,” he said.

As has been reported, when giving his State of the Nation address on August 16 at the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) in Jakarta, President Widodo said he had signed a Keppres on the formation of a team for the non-judicial resolution of past gross human rights violations.

Widodo also said that a Draft Law on Truth and Reconsolidation (RUU KKR) was in the process of being deliberated.

Non-judicial mechanisms have long been criticised by civil society groups because they can be used as an alibi by the government not to pursue cases of gross human rights violations through judicial means.

Currently there are 12 cases of human rights violations being handled by the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM).

They include:

• The 1965 mass killings;
• The May 1998 riots in Jakarta;
• The 1997-98 Trisakti, Semanggi I and Semanggi II student shootings;
• The assassination of renowned human rights defender Munir Said Thalib, co-founder of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS);
• and the 2014 Paniai shootings in Papua.

Translated by James Balowski for Indoleft News and republished with permission. The original title of the article was Jokowi Dinilai Putihkan Pelanggar HAM Berat Lewat Keppres Terbaru.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz