The Blog of Karwalski

I'm on twitter – @karwalski

How to sack ALL of our preselected un-representative’s

Sick of Australian ‘Politics’? Simple solution, send the following letter to the Governor-General… And don’t forget to CC the Queen, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott. I have been waiting four months with no response, they could do with some reminders from everyone else.

 

Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC CVO
Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
Government House
Dunrossil Drive
YARRALUMLA ACT 2600

 

CC. Her Majesty the Queen, Australian Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition

 

Your Excellency,

I am requesting dissolution of the House of Representatives. I understand there is a constitutional convention that restricts the Governor-General to dissolve the house under advice of the Prime Minister, however as former Governor-General Sir John Kerr exercised his reserve powers in 1975, I request the same again.

I further request that no current or former federal members are eligible for re-election, in order to restore the citizens’ confidence and dignity of Australian Parliament.

I have included Her Majesty the Queen, Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott on CC of this letter, as I believe this matter is of serious national importance.

 

Yours sincerely

x

 

Address’ for CC

Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
United Kingdom

The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

The Hon Tony Abbott MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

 

Advertisements

Transcript of Speech at Freedom not Fear

Speech I gave at Freedom not Fear, Hyde Park, Sydney on September 15 (Video available here – http://youtu.be/2Ej2f2SjogQ)

–Introduction omitted–

With new and existing legislations, our rights are being taken away at an increasingly fast rate, which is why we are all here today at Freedom not Fear, part of an international movement to raise awareness of Censorship & Surveillance, and fight for Government transparency, whistle-blower & journalist protection and share ideas, tools and techniques like data encryption and online anonymity.

And it’s no coincidence that the key terms I just used are also often used when describing the WikiLeaks organisation we are talking about basic human rights of freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of thought and many more rights..

Since 2006 WikiLeaks has been successful at opening governments, I wish I could list the millions.. Literally millions of documents they have and still are currently releasing, or even list all those of major significance but we would be here for hours.. Instead I will focus on a select few WikiLeaks releases today.

In 2009 WikiLeaks released the secret blacklist of websites that the Australian Government planned on censoring from the Australian people, are dark insight into the intentions of the government to censor the internet. But what stood out about the list was that half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn, rather they included online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, religious sites, fetish sites..

And in a bizarre twist two websites of two small Australian business’.. A tour operator and a dentist.

Earlier this year, WikiLeaks released the Spy Files revealing that the mass interception of entire populations is not only a reality, it is a secret new industry spanning at least 25 countries, and possibly present in Australia. Hundreds of documents from as many as 160 intelligence contractors in the mass surveillance industry. Intelligence agencies, military, and police are able to silently, and on mass, and secretly intercept calls and take over computers without the help or knowledge of the telecommunication providers. Users’ physical location can be tracked if they are carrying a mobile phone, their microphone remotely activated to record conversations, even if it is only on stand-by. In a world with air strikes from drones murdering suspects without trial, where is this headed?

Another release this year by WikiLeaks was the Global Intelligence Files, Millions of emails stolen by Anonymous from the “Private” intelligence organisation Stratfor, with close links to United States authorities, and suggestions of using torture and sexual coercion to get their sources to talk. Among organising a meeting with our now current Foreign Minister Bob Carr, disclosing a sealed indictment for Julian Assange and intimidation techniques used on activist and dissidents throughout the world.

The Stratfor emails revealed a close link with a company by the name TrapWire, owned by the Abraxas & Cubic Corporations. The same cubic corporation that does transport ticketing in Queensland and contracts to the Australian Defence Force. TrapWire uses information from surveillance cameras across the world to record and store on a central database in a secret location to be automatically analysed with other intelligence information and facial recognition. Basically tracking your every move and using algorithms to determine certain behaviours and identify a map of who is friends with who, and where you will likely be on Tuesday morning. Western Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam questioned the Government in the Senate as to whether TrapWire is used in Australia, to my understanding he is yet to receive a response from all agencies, and ASIO refuses to answer any questions about anything… but that’s another story..

When you combine technologies I have previously mentioned with the Australian Government’s proposals for the National Security Inquiry, Cybercrime legislation, Signed deals with foreign governments for information sharing as well as existing powers of ASIO and the Australia Federal Police. A database of every citizens ‘meta data’ of emails, browsing history and social networking conversations, and a camera on every street post sounds a lot like the book 1984 written by George Orwell.

The main character Winston Smith is told “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?  Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?  The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

We are here today to stand up for our freedoms, which brings me to the surprisingly rare ruling in the Southern District of New York Court in the United States 2 days ago. Judge Katherine Forrest ruled to permanently stop the use of the controversial National Defense Authorisation Act or NDAA, a group of writers, journalists, and activists whose work regularly requires them to engage in writing, speech, and associational activities protected by the First Amendment.  They have testified credibly to having an actual and reasonable fear that their activities will subject them to indefinite military detention pursuant to the NDAA.

In summary, ‘we’ the people won! I should add that within 24 hours of the ruling Barrack Obamas administration announced they would appeal the decision to scrap the NDAA in the Supreme Court.

Judge Forrest gave a 112 page response, which I recommend anyone closely watching Australia National Security Laws reads. She said “How about a YouTube video? Where is the line between what the government would consider “journalistic reporting” and “propaganda?” she asked. “Who will make such determinations? Will there be an office established to read articles, watch videos, and evaluate speeches in order to make judgments along a spectrum of where the support is ‘modest’ or ‘substantial?’”

One of the plaintifs a journalist & activist Alexa O’Brien, who was on the Occupy episode of Julian Assange’s ‘The World Tomorrow’ TV show, Alexa had written about United States cables released by WikiLeaks, about the persecution of Julian Assange and court proceedings of Bradley Manning, and many other WikiLeaks related topics, all of which were referenced in the response. Alexa told the court how she had become aware through WikiLeaks releases that Stratfor was working with current and former intelligence agents to try and link her involvement in the activist group ‘US Day of Rage’ with Islamic fundamentalist movements, the ‘Anonymous’ hacktivist collective and labelling Alexa as a cyber-terrorist.. A cyber-terrorist for being associated with the likes of Julian Assange who has also being labelled a cyber-terrorist.

Julian Assange is currently being held as a pawn in a political move by the UK Government threatening to assault the Ecuadorian embassy… the UK Government threatening to assault the Ecuadorian embassy. Which we have reasonable evidence to suggest was under the instruction of the United States Government.

On behalf of Julian Assange, his father this morning accepted Julian’s Aboriginal Nations Passport presented by the Indigenous Social Justice Association, In addition several Sovereign Aboriginal Nations are considering giving Julian Assange refuge and sanctuary in their Nations.

In December 2010, within days of WikiLeaks releasing CableGate, a quarter of a million cables between United States Embassies and the State Department, The Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard called Julian Assange’s actions illegal, and the former Attorney-General Robert McClelland attempted to cancel his passport, I also allege that Robert McClelland jumped on the phone to his former ALP co-worker, former Visa employee and now Vice President of MasterCard David Masters to conspire with the United States Government in an unprecedented global financial blockade of the WikiLeaks organisation… Financial Censorship.. All of this for someone who had not been charged with a single crime, let alone fair trial. Instead Julian now faces allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden, which he has offered to answer in the United Kingdom or in Sweden if they simply guarantee they will not hand him over to the United States, the Australian Government refuses to even assist negotiate some basic terms to protect Julian’s rights.

Julian Assange seeks truth & freedom, let’s help Julian by bringing truth out and fighting existing and proposed Orwellian laws.

As I mentioned the people had a victory in the NDAA case! We need to unite and stand together to maintain our freedoms, and get back those that have already been taken from us. We must be able to continue to thrive in Freedom not Fear.

Bob Carr’s secret meeting with Stratfor

Senator Bob Carr was confused and frustrated at being asked a question about a meeting with Stratfor CEO George Friedman during a Q&A session after he delivered a speech to Young Labor delegates and Sydney University students.

Obviously not ready to answer a question about a topic his advisor’s hadn’t prepared him with a brief on prior to speaking, he revealed his confusion as why it takes a citizen journalist to ask him the hard questions and the main stream media keep quiet on this topic.

WikiLeaks describes the Global Intelligence Files as follows;

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

The Wikileaks release of the Global Intelligence Files, reveals emails sent between Colin Chapman the NSW President of Australian Institute of International Affairs, and George and Meredith Friedman in April and May of 2009.

“Bob Carr is the former Premier of New South Wales, and is now a leading
adviser to Macquarie Bank on international issies. He travels a lot.
He wanted to come to the dinner, but himself is speaking at an event in
Canberra that night. I talked with him and he wanted to come but did not
think he could pull out of it and let them down.
He says he would really like to meet you. Is there any time in Sydney you
might have to do that. A breakfast on Monday perhaps? Or any other time?”

Meredith Friedman replied

“I’m sure we can arrange something while we’re in Sydney. Let me look at
our schedule and get back to you.”

Full email available on the WikiLeaks release page http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/284888_re-bob-carr-.html

Senator Carr denies meeting with George Friedman, saying “He kept the meeting a secret from me” and “wearing a disguise”

Although he also said he would have to check his diary, details of the WikiLeaks release will be supplied to his secratary as requested for further comment.

Whilst the exact day is not specified the timeline provided in the emails suggest the meeting would be organised on one of the following Monday mornings (04-May-2009, 11-May-2009, 18-May-2009, 25-May-2009, 01-Jun-2009, 08-Jun-2009).

Audio of the question put to Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister Senator Bob Carr and his answer on the 31st of August 2012.
http://soundcloud.com/user364581776/karwalski-question-to-bob-carr

Full audio of his speech and all questions and answers (missing introduction and wrap up by unknown host)
http://soundcloud.com/user364581776/full-speech-and-q-a-bob-carr

A group of SAWC protesters stood with their backs turned to Senator Carr holding placards in support of Julian Assange. The remained standing for approx 1 hour as Senator Carr delivered his speech.

The question also refers to an email from George Friedman in which he calls all of Sydney University staff and students “dickheads” http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1050427_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html

The SAWC (Support Assange and WikiLeaks Coalition) Sydney sent a request to meet with Senator Bob Carr on the 6th of June, after multiple phone calls his office replied with a rejection at 12.54pm on Thursday the 16th of August. I note the significance of the time and date as it was within 24 hours of the UK Government threatening to raid the Ecuadorian embassy, a couple of hours after Julia Gillard refused to answer questions on the topic, refering them to a statement coming soon from Senator Carr. Infact it was a couple of hours later (after they refused to meet SAWC) when Senator Carr read his pre-prepared statement in response to a question asked by WA Greens Senator Scott Ludlam.

The text of the response from Senator Carr’s office included

“Unfortunately, due to extensive overseas travel and parliamentary commitments, Senator Carr is unable to schedule a meeting.
Our office will advise you if these circumstances change.”

On Wednesday, 12th September 2012, 6 to 8 PM a public forum titled “Public Forum: Assange, WikiLeaks & the Law in a Post 9/11 World”
Venue: The Macquarie Room @ NSW Parliament House, Macquarie Street, Sydney
Speakers
DAN MORI, Lawyer (US Defence lawyer for David Hicks)
WENDY BACON, Journalist & professor
MC DAVID SHOEBRIDGE, NSW Greens MLC
More information: http://stopwarcoalition.org/events/public-forum-assange-wikileaks-the-law-in-a-post-911-world/

Got questions? Twitter @karwalski Email wordpress@karwalski.com

UPDATE: 03/09/2012

Around 3pm on Monday September 3rd, I received a phone call from Daniel Sharp from Senator Bob Carr’s parliamentary office in Canberra. Below is some of the comments he made over the phone.

In regards to a meeting between Bob Carr and George Friedman of Stratfor.

“..we have checked the diaries.. there was no meetings between Bob Carr and George Friedman between April and June 2009..”

In regards to SAWC requesting to meet with a DFAT representative if Bob Carr is ‘busy’

“..nothing has changed in terms of my recent response..”

FOI Release: Department of Finance denies existence of WikiLeaks Banking Blockade docs

I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Australian Department of Finance, as to information regarding the WikiLeaks Banking Blockade. The requested was refused by Jill Clark, Acting Director, Legal Service Branch, Department of Finance and Deregulation (Contact person is Laura Clark, Administrative Assistant, Paralegal, Freedom of Information, Corporate Services Division, Legal Services Branch, Cheif Operating Officer Group (COOG), Department of Finance and Deregulation)

I have decided to refuse access to the document you have requested, under paragraph 24A of the FOI Act, on the grounds that it does not exist.

I had requested the following.

..between the dates of November 1st 2010 to July 24th 2012 unless specified otherwise

Communications between the Department of finance and the former Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland or Attorney-General the Hon Nicola Roxon relating to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks

Communications between the Department of finance and the former Prime Minister the Hon Kevin Rudd or Prime Minister the Hon Julia Gillard relating to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks

Communications between the Department of finance and executives of MasterCard Australia relating to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks

Communications between the Department of finance and executives of Visa Australia relating to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks

Communications between the Department of finance and executives of PayPal Australia relating to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks

Communications between the Department of finance and executives of WesternUnion Australia relating to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks

Communications between the Department of finance and executives of Amazon Australia relating to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks

Communications between the Department of finance and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) relating to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks

Communications between the Department of finance and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) relating to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks

Documents which the Department of Finance hold on record relating to the WikiLeaks organisation

Documents relating to research undertaken by any member of the Department of Finance in regards to WikiLeaks on July 23 2012

I submit a FOI Request to department of finance after spotting the Department of Finance’s IP visiting my blog

I submitted the FOI request at 12:45AM on the 24th of July 2012, the same IP address visited the domain of the email address I used to submit the FOI request the following day.

 

Interesting…

FOI Release: No ‘official’ communication between AG and MasterCard regarding WikiLeaks blockade

A follow up to my blog in April, What is the connection between MasterCard, ALP and the WikiLeaks Banking Blockade

Last month I sent a freedom of information request to the Attorney-General Department, I used specific details and a small time-frame to ensure it would get knocked back for being not specific enough.

The following were my requests.

Please send me the date and time of any meetings involving both the Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland (including his department staff) and Mastercard Australia’s Vice President David Masters which were scheduled between the dates of November 27 2010 to December 31 2010.

Please send me the minutes of any meetings in which Julian Assange or WikiLeaks were discussed by any parties including both the Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland (including his department staff) and Mastercard Australia’s Vice President David Masters which were scheduled between the dates of November 27 2010 to December 31 2010.

Please send me any email, or other electronic messages in which Julian Assange or WikiLeaks were discussed by any parties including both the Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland (including his department staff) and Mastercard Australia’s Vice President David Masters which were scheduled between the dates of November 27 2010 to December 31 2010.

Please send me any mailed letters in which Julian Assange or WikiLeaks were discussed by any parties including both the Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland (including his department staff) and Mastercard Australia’s Vice President David Masters which were scheduled between the dates of November 27 2010 to December 31 2010.

Please send me any facsimiles in which Julian Assange or WikiLeaks were discussed by any parties including both the Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland (including his department staff) and Mastercard Australia’s Vice President David Masters which were scheduled between the dates of November 27 2010 to December 31 2010.

Today I received their decision on my FOI request, as follows;

I am, pursuant to arrangements approved by the Secretary of this Department under section 23(1) of the Act, authorised to make decisions on behalf of this Department, in relation to this matter.
Having made extensive searches and enquiries within the Department, I have been unable to locate any documents that are revelant to your request. I am obliged, therefore, to refuse your request under section 24A of the Act. That section allows an agency to refuse a request if all reasonable steps have been taken to locate the documents sought and it is satisfied that the documents either do not exist or cannot be found. On this occassion, I am satisfies that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate documents, and that this Department is not in possession of any documents which fall within the scope of your request.

The decision was made by Leatah Coutts, Assistant Director, Freedom of Information & Privacy Section, Office of Corporate Counsel, Attorney Generals Department.

The decision would indicate no official communications or meeting were scheduled between the pair, however this does not rule out any possibilities of private meetings or phone calls between the pair.

I grabbed a small section of hay and ran a magnet over it in hope of finding the needle.. Not going to give up on this one, just start using more inventive ways of locating the needle in the haystack.

… And hope my MasterCard still works when I go to buy the groceries…

Australian National Security or Out of Control Spy Agency

I have not been watching very closely, but I did pick-up the joint-parliament committees on the calendar on the aph.gov.au website a few months ago, and spotted the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security had a scheduled meeting. I knew nothing more of it and made a brief mention of it in a question to the PM on ABC’s Q&A TV series in regards to oversight and transparency. Little was I aware (like most Australians) of the major reforms they are proposing to national security. I am no expert in the field, but I do call on all experts to read the papers put forward by the committee and make a submission as soon as possible! The deadline for submissions is Monday August 6th (thats 4 weeks from the date of this post).

Discussion papers can be found here – http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/index.htm

On the 8th June 2012 (for the 11th of June episode of ABC’s Q&A with Julia Gillard) although not aired on national TV, I asked the following in a video question;

Prime minister Gillard, My question is regarding freedom of information and the intellegence agency, ASIO. Jokingly someone recently told me that ASIO probably has a file on me. I laughed it off at first, but the curious person I am, I did some digging, and sure enough discovered that in plain english in the FAQ Section of the ASIO website that not only is the agency exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, they are also exempt from the Privacy Act, meaning they can obtain citizens private information from any agency or organisation without them knowing or having the oppertunity to dispute. Weather I be a Assylum Seeker, WikiLeaks supporter, Anti-coal activist or everyday citizen, A system with no proper oversight or transparency is deplorable. And before you answer that Inspector General you appointed has oversight, recent senate committes and upcoming submissions show quite the oposite. How can every day Australians be given a fair-go, when your ‘spy agency’ is out of control?

You can watch the video on ABCs website (poor quality audio) http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/video-questions.htm#id=3e4bc5d8-9585-4ca1-9131-8c0e944bec1d

Julian Assange would be no better off under a LNP Government.

The role of Shadow Attorney-General is currently held by Senator the Hon George Brandis, SC. I wrote to him a month ago with my disgust in the lack of action and attacking of Julian Assange by the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, the current Attorney-General.

I was surprised to read his response today, in a letter dated June 1st 2012, two days after the latest supreme court ruling on Julian Assange. Rather than jumping at the opportunity to discredit his oponent Nicola Roxon, Senator Brandis instead starts his letter attacking Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Like former Attorney-General McClelland, and the office of the current AG, he labeled WikiLeaks ‘irresponsible’.

Dispite Australian Federal Police investigating any wrong doing, and publicly sharing that he has broken no Australian laws, Senator Brandis (with over 30 years of legal experience) believes it is “not all that clear” if Julian Assange has broken Australian laws.

I have typed the letter below.

1 JUN 2012

Dear Mr xxxxxxx

I refer to your letter on 2 May 2012 concerning Mr Julian Assange.

The Coalition condemns the irresponsible disclosure of sensitive national security information by WikiLeaks. However, it is not at all clear that Mr Assange has committed any contravention of Australian laws by posting the information. The person who accessed and passed on the material to WikiLeaks would seem to have committed a serious breach of US law; that is a matter for the US authorities.

On the allegations of sexual assault, that is a matter for the Swedish authorities to deal with. Furthermore, the extradition proceeding are a matter of UK law.

As an Australian citizen, Mr Assange [is] entitled to consular assistance. That will include checking on his welfare and ensuring he has access to legal assistance. It does not involve and advocacy on his behalf in relation to the Swedish or British proceedings – that is for the relevant authorities and his legal team.

I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

George Brandis SC

WikiLeaks Banking Blockade: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)

I wrote to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) shortly after the Beat the Blockade day of action on April 5 regarding my concerns that Westpac, Mastercard Australia Pty Ltd and Paypal Australia Pty Ltd have disabled my capacity to transfer funds to WikiLeaks. I chose these companies as I am a customer of each of them.

The ACCC ensures compliance of Australian business to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (herein refered to as ‘the Act’), it is not an easy read with 179 section (link1)

The ACCC is designed to encourage fair trading and discourage anti-competitive conduct through a specific set of competition and consumer protection rules.

In the response I received from ACCC on the 1st of May, they stated

“Generally speaking, individual companies are not obliged to supply you with particular products or services; they are free to make their own decisions about who they deal with and there is no automatic right on your part to be supplied by them.

There are only a limited number of circumstances where a refusal to deal will constitute a breach of the Act; these include situations where there are agreements between competitors (horizontal) or between traders at different levels of the supply chain (vertical) which restrict supply to others in the market, or where a supplier of goods has a substantial degree of power in a market and uses that power to affect competition or prevent entry to a market (misuse of market power).”

The ACCC also pointed me towards section 46 of the Act, titled ‘Misuse of market power’.

Direct link to Section 46 of the Act can be found here (link2)

“(1) A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power in that or any other market for the purpose of:
(a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market;
(b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or
(c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.”

The ACCC paraphrased this and stated the following in the letter (I cannot locate an amendment to the act to reflect the same).

“Section 46 of the Act prohibits Australian corporations with substantial market power misusing that power for the purpose of (a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor, or (b) preventing or deterring a business engaging in competitive conduct in any market.”

The ACCC ruled out “eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor” saying it would not be applicable as “the funds transfer providers are not competitors of WikiLeaks”.

However they did leave the second mentioned “preventing or deterring a business engaging in competitive conduct in any market” open to interpretation, and they stated “In that clause, ‘competitive conduct’ refers to activities by the target business in competition to the business of the alleged predator”.

If I refer back to the wording of the Act they use the wording “competitive conduct in that or any other market”. In the case of WikiLeaks and the financial institutions, WikiLeaks is being deterred from competitive conduct in the media market. I can make the simple connection that “any other market” includes media organisations.

The ACCC makes it clear that they do not provide legal advice, and given the information that I had provided (I should have pointed them towards a web search engine) the ACCC claim that “there appears to be no evidence of any anticompetitive agreement. Accordingly, this office does not propose to take any further action in respect of this matter.”

And they pointed me towards the pamphlet ‘Refusal to Deal’ (link3)

Contact the ACCC at 1300 302 502 (Australia) or find their contact details here (link4)
You can use the online complaint form to log your own complaint about the WikiLeaks Banking Blockade (link5)

WikiLeaks wants to litigate in different jurisdictions against the finance institutions that have put up an unlawful and arbitrary blockade to cripple WikiLeaks. Litigation proceedings have already started in the EU, and are underway in several other countries. If you are a lawyer and you think you can help, contact WikiLeaks on: litigjur(AT)mail(DOT)be and let them know what your specialty is, how you can help, and how much time you can dedicate to lending your support to WikiLeaks. Put LITIGATION + your country in the subject line.

Find out more about the WikiLeaks banking blockade here (link6)

What is the connection between MasterCard, ALP and the WikiLeaks Banking Blockade

On April 5 WikiLeaks supporters around the world donated $5 to WikiLeaks to beat the blockade, some people asked what else they could do to raise awareness and help beat the financial blockade that has been crippling WikiLeaks funding for over 500 days. And Some, like Andrew Partos took action and called MasterCard, one of the companies blocking funding to WikiLeaks.

Andrew is an abundant writer of letters to the press in the name of truth, justice and free speech. You can find out more about Andrews story and the details of the phone call in this video by Cathy Vogan (link1) Andrew stated that he was able to speak with Mr David Masters of MasterCard (Vice President, Strategy and Corporate Affairs) after calling MasterCard’s Sydney telephone number with queries about the WikiLeaks banking blockade. Mr Masters does not deny the conversation took place (link2) however Mr Masters does refer to a comment made by Andrew as a false allegation.

Andrew Partos is adamant that It is alleged that Mr Masters said “MasterCard have every right to stop dealing with whoever we want to.” “MasterCard acted on the instructions of the PM (Julia Gillard) and the Attorney general (Robert McClelland)”

MasterCard’s statements were as follows; “The decision to suspend acceptance to WikiLeaks was MasterCard’s alone. Given the serious nature of the allegations and some of the public comments by senior elected officials from around the world (including the Australian Prime Minister and the then Attorney-General who indicated that there were questions about the legalities of WikiLeaks activity) we believed it was prudent to suspend acceptance. The allegation that we were instructed by the PM and AG is incorrect.”

A second statement was released in regards to whether there was any discussion at all between MasterCard and the government before the decision was made. “there was no contact at all between MasterCard and the Government before our decision.”

I want to add one fact that is freely available via a web search and clicking onto the LinkedIn profile of Mr David Masters (link3). Mr David Masters worked as a media advisor for the Labor Party between June 1995 and November 1996. In March 1996, the Hon Robert McClelland became Labor’s member for Barton in Sydney (link4). In addition Mr Masters has worked on had bounced between Visa and MasterCard multiple times in the last decade. Visa is another financial institution that blocked funding to WikiLeaks within hours of MasterCard.

Is it possible that Mr David Masters of MasterCard and Former Attorney General, Robert McClelland have not only know each other and kept in contact over the last 15 years, but also spoke to each other in early December 2010 to orchestrate the blocking of funds to WikiLeaks?

Political Offence meaning in Australian Extradition Act

A simple before and after of the definition of ‘political offence’ in the newly amended Extradition Act of 1988

 

Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 

 

NEW

Part 3–Other amendments

Division 1–Amendments relating to political offences

Extradition  Act 1988

33 Section 5 (paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of political offence)

Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:

(a) an offence that involves an act of violence against a person’s life or liberty; or

(b) an offence prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph to be an extraditable offence in relation to the country or all countries; or

(c) an offence prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph not to be a political offence in relation to the country or all countries

 

OLD

“political offence” , in relation to a country, means an offence against the law of the country that is of a political character (whether because of the circumstances in which it is committed or otherwise and whether or not there are competing political parties in the country), but does not include:

(a)  an offence that is constituted by conduct of a kind referred to in:

(i)  Article 1 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, being the convention a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 1 to the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 ; or

(ii)  Article 1 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, being the convention a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 2 to the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 ; or

(iia)  Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, done at New York on 9 December 1999; or

(iii)  paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Convention on the Protection and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, being the convention a copy of the English text of which is set out in the Schedule to the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 ; or

(iv)  Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, being the convention a copy of the English text of which is set out in the Genocide Convention Act 1949 ; or

(v)  Article 1 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, being the convention of that title that was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979; or

(vi)  Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, being the convention of that title that was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984; or

(vii)  Article 3 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 1 to the Crimes (Ships and Fixed Platforms) Act 1992 ; or

(viii)  Article 2 of the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 2 to theCrimes (Ships and Fixed Platforms) Act 1992 ; or

(ix)  Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, done at New York on 15 December 1997;

(b)  an offence constituted by conduct that, by an  extradition treaty  (not being a bilateral treaty) in relation to the country or any country, is required to be treated as an offence for which a person is permitted to be surrendered or tried, being an offence declared by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph not to be a political offence in relation to the country or all countries;

(c)  an offence constituted by:

(i)  the murder, kidnapping or other attack on the person or liberty; or

(ii)  a threat or attempt to commit, or participation as an accomplice in, a murder, kidnapping or other attack on the person or liberty;

of the head of state or head of government of the country or a member of the family of either such person, being an offence declared by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph not to be a political offence in relation to the country; or

(d)  an offence constituted by taking or endangering, attempting to take or endanger or participating in the taking or endangering of, the life of a person, being an offence:

(i)  committed in circumstances in which such conduct creates a collective danger, whether direct or indirect, to the lives of other persons; and

(ii)  declared by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph not to be a political offence in relation to the country.