G20-Corporate Media Smears : Melbourne Indymedia

The photos appeared on The Age and Herald Sun websites accompanied by stories.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21079797-661,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/g20-riot-suspects-unmasked/2007/01/18/1169095897775.html

The Age story appears under the headline of ‘G20 riot suspects unmasked’. This headline, and the publishing of the ‘persons of interest’ deserve closer attention.

Firstly, of concern is the fact that those photographed are identified as ‘riot suspects’. According to the Herald Sun article, ‘police would not say whether any of the people they wanted to speak to had broken the law, or were just witnesses to the violence’. So how are these people ‘riot suspects’? It would appear that The Age has posted photos of people as riot suspects with no evidence that this is the case. Not sure about the ins and outs of defamation law, but if I were one of those people, a call to a lawyer might be worthwhile.

The second part of the headline is that these ‘riot suspects’ were ‘unmasked’. Were they? A few of them are masked up, but a lot of them are not. No evidence is provided that these people were in fact masked up at any time. But the insinuation in clear - that these people who might just have been witnesses were all seeking to conceal their identities for some reason. Again no evidence to justify the headline is provided.

A look at the photos reveals several people holding cameras in poses and outfits that suggest they were doing little more than filming. In fact, one seems to be holding a video camera. Are Police suggesting that the person was holding it in one hand while smashing a Police van and rioting with the other. It would seem the more likely explanation is that Police want these people’s footage. As such, the question arises as to what the ethics are of The Age publishing these people’s photos on their site for the possible sole purpose of gathering information for Police. Is their privacy worth nothing? One imagines that if an incident occurred in a corporate marquee at the Melbourne Cup that they would have been a bit more hesitant in publishing photos of possible witnesses as ‘people of interest’ for the possible sole purpose of gathering information.

The most important issue raised though is the intimidatory effect this kind of reporting has on public protest. The implication is clear. Go to a protest, and if there is any illegal activity, you could have your photo splashed across the media as a ‘person of interest’ merely for being there at the same time.

As was the case at the time of the G20 protests where reports slandered protestors with no evidence (think Age headline ‘Protestors Throw Urine’) while documented examples of Police violence were downplayed or ignored, we are left to see clearly where the allegiances of our corporate media outlets lie and how far they will sway from journalistic principles in the service of the powerful.

Related

G20 Corporate Media Coverage
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/132637.php

I'm not sure you'll get your photo splashed across the front page by merely turning up at a protest. Just like you'll probably never endure that experience by jumping into a taxi.

Unless you assault the taxi driver or otherwise break the law, that is.

And that's the point of this whole affair. These people are suspected of breaking the law in some way (maybe seriously, maybe not) in connection with the riotous behaviour we saw at the G20 protests.

99.9% of people who went to the protest didn't have their pictures published. Just like 99.9% of taxi passengers don't.

That's because they don't behave in a way which prompts authorities to seek their identities. That's because they don't engage in behaviour which draws attention to themselves.

This is a standard chestnut from defence lawyers. Distract attention from the alleged wrong doing of your client by complaining about the actions of the investigating authorities. Yawn.

It rarely works, and it hasn't in this case.

Holding people to account is what this is all about. Full stop. Don't worry about what the police did or didn't do. Complaints will be investigated etc. Concentrate on what these bozos allegedly did.

If I were one of these idiots, I'd be keeping one eye open every time I climb into bed. Their awakening may be more than they bargain for!

Sweet dreams.

it aint just about acountability, but a whole lot more to do with politics. the politics of the australian media that ranks as one of the worst in terms of being 'free and fair', and the reputation of the police/police comissioner, but more so how other organisations may view australia. australia is not particularly violent, however there is much underlying racism as there is frustration with politics not being representative of the people's desires and interests that can cause such urban unrest and encourage further intimidation and oppression from the state

Mission Impossible

Anyways now you know the game don't play it any longer simple as that.

Best is to go find our space and promote peace and no need for the bloc.

Their space with their rule of law is jail.

Times have also changed and their rule of law as I knew it is not their rule of law now. PNAC is running the show didn't you know?

So unless there are more dissenters in what you've got like a small bloc then they've got the force and supreme power.

But of course the ants have the power but where are your ants? Build it and they will come. Find our space next time and protest there and away from their institutions.

They will kill you (baton you) or you may die in custody and they have no mercy. They are your mortal enemy. Better the devil you know. But now you know how evil they are then think of how many fantastic ideas you can come up with through the back door, if you know what I mean.

It's not always good to stand out in the crowd yelling and screaming saying I hate you and throwing things at them.

I will give you a scenario that I learned it goes like this:

Mission Impossible

I am your friend you think. You believe me and I offer you a great deal.

I say to you here is a package that I want you to deliver to my friend. Here is a chopper and a pilot. Please take this to an Island and deliver it to my other friend and I will ensure that you get whatever it is you want?

You say thanks friend and there you are in the chopper flying to the island.

You get to parachute down with the package and the instructions for delivery, you are told are in the package, just press the button and receive the instructions when you land.

On landing you press the button and you get a taped message.

It's from the person who sent you and it says, sorry about this but you're really not my friend. I heard you were going to do me out of my inheritance or job or whatever. You scum bag I sent you to your death because I want it all. There is a sniper on the Island and he's going to take you out sooner or later, good by.

Shit what are you going to do?

Most people say I don't know?

I should inform you though that you should duck!

Where did you go wrong?

You're pretty smart?

What about if you don't tell stranger danger that you don't like them when you know that they don't like you first?

What does that mean? It means that you don't give your enemy first shot!

If stranger danger knows that you don't like them then they will shoot you first.

So you've no need to tell stranger danger that you don't like them just don't like them. Then you get first shot! Of course you're not trying to kill them but you get first shot at what it is that you're trying to stop them from taking or destroying.

So the protest bloc thing just tells them you don't like them and because they know it and they have unlimited power then they take first shot. Click, they take your picture then they know you're the enemy and they get the second shot, Click the Age newspaper to spoil you so they can take you out with the third shot Click their rule of law and then the fourth shot, Click their gulag and then Click you never get a job or a career ever again minimum. Or if you're mighty unlucky Click you get kicked to death like Mulrinji on the way in or Click someone kills you in prison before you get out. Then Click they say you just fell over.

That's why there is more than one way to skin a cat and better the devil you know. One of them is the police and the other is definitely the Age Newspaper! No buts about it the Age Newspaper is your mortal enemy too!

Of course it's not good to do this with your close family or loved ones. But for strangers dangers, authorities and corporate ratbag newspapers it is. It could even save your life.

If you tell someone you don't like them then they get first move. So don't give them first move.

Now how can you stop them first without them knowing it? Mmmm

Mission becomes possible and guess what no one knows except you and your trusted friends - that is if you know how to keep a secret. Remember too that a secret is only a secret if you don't tell others who don't like you, like stranger dangers and or put yourself on show in front of the cameras doing so.

So if you have a strategy next time like postering or bill boarding hop to it via the back door, but mums the word.

Happy Dissenting!

RE: "Don't worry about what the police did or didn't do. Complaints will be investigated etc. Concentrate on what these bozos allegedly did."

Yeah that'd be great woundn't it. It like to see the police held account for repeatedly (and I mean 100+ times) throwing people to the ground, battoning them over the head and kneeling on their necks. Because that's what happened on Spring Street, I was there in support of HRO. The commercial media was NOT there at all, they'd got their story and gone home. There were idiot protesters there too, but the majority - over 90% were peaceful. Didn't stop the police from drawing blood and then stalling the ambulances that were called.

Don't want sanctimonious crap?

What's this 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' rubbish you're spouting then?

If you've got nothing to worry about it's because you're a scumbag!

Now read up real people!

The attack on democratic rights

The prosecution of policies directly in the interests of the rich and the super-rich cannot, in the end, be carried through by traditional democratic methods. The real reason for the unprecedented assault on democratic rights is the need to expand the repressive powers of the state against an eruption of popular opposition, not to protect the people from external terrorist threats.

In the United States, the Bush administration has implemented, with the support of the Democratic Party and the mass media, anti-democratic measures that in their totality have created the legal and institutional framework for a police state.

Government spying on the people has rendered the right to privacy a dead letter. The right to a trial and legal counsel and the centuries-old principle of habeas corpus have been undermined. Secret prisons and torture have been sanctioned by laws passed with bipartisan support. Appeals to the protections laid down by the Geneva Conventions and other international laws have been banished from US courts.

These repressive actions have been emulated all over the world. In Britain, the Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed in 2005, abolishing the bedrock principle of presumption of innocence and freeing the government to impose lengthy detentions without charges. In Australia, the five years since the September 11, 2001 attacks have seen the Howard government implement more than 40 separate counter-terrorism laws. Never have the rights of the world’s people been so threatened as they are today.

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/137450.php

It's darkly funny that those who most often use the term 'democracy' as a weapon of argument to push their agenda are usually those that, if ever brought to power, are first to abolish and abandon it: to protect their agenda from the capricous whims of the masses. The agenda is King. One gets the impression that it's the issue that is most important here (G20 vs neo-Marxist/anarcho ideology), not democracy.

Similarly with the Justice term for the Palm Island death...

I want to say it couldn't get much worse than it is now and in my view socialism means being social. What it means to you obviously relates to antiquated history.

Why should a call for democracy instead of a psudo-democracy and verging on a police state, if not already under PNAC rules, not at least give you reasons to think about the current system?

Why can't we object to the current system? Of course we can object but what gets done? Nothing. Despots and war criminals running the country who have control of the senate and now implement not only draconian laws but over-ride state laws with corporate law. What about the illegal and degrading wars of aggression? Torture? Etc...

No! We've got despots like Lib/Lab running the country. The corporate media project to 90 per cent of the population and make sure people are brainwashed on two party preferred why is that? No debate with minor parties?

People who say it's okay to rendition and torture our citizens like Mamdouh Habib. People who say it's okay to hold people in detention for nothing for years on end for migration. People who say our citizens can be held in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years like David Hicks without charge or even a trial let alone a fair trial. John Howard had the option two years ago to bring David Home and he said no! Not the US. Your PM?

People who can give a person 20 years for thought crimes and ask the jury to push on when they couldn't make up their mind? Four Corners acting as a police informant?

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/137475_comment.php

If you read the link above properly you can clearly see where we are headed and it's not very good.

If any of these "people of interest" are innocent, then all they need to do is front up to a police station and talk to the coppers.

What have they to hide?

As said by another reader, they simply may be after their footage/photos.

However, the fact that none of these "innocent bystanders" have come forward is an indication that they probably were, indeed, among the mindless thugs that trashed and bashed their way though the otherwise peacefull tree-lined streets of Melbourne.

And, given that fact, why shouldn't they be publicly named and shamed?

"If any of these "people of interest" are innocent, then all they need to do is front up to a police station and talk to the coppers."

The police should be talking to people who have done something wrong, not the people are innocent.

If they have nothing to hide then its a waste of everyones time and it encourages the guilty until proven innocent mentality.

Have you ever read the United Nations declarion of independence ?

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The only right we have in this country is what is given to us by the powers that be and their enforcers.

On that basis we live with despots. The truth of the matter is the disparity of the law but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

A teacher who does not take blame for criminal acts or offences against a person is a bad teacher. In fact cannot teach and does not lead by example.

The same as head of state or central gov't.

So let all the head criminals who are slaughtering thousands of innocent people go first and then there would be less need for dissent in the first place. They've got nothing to fear if they've got nothing to hide.

But there are many reasons to protest with what is going on at the G8. None of this protesting is wrong, tension causes agitation and frustration which boils over but who's causing the tension enough for people to get annoyed? Who's not listening to the majority of the people? Who won't give them a ticket? Who is shutting them out?

In order to solve problems people must be invited into the decision making process otherwise there are going to people who won't think they have been represented in decisions made for them that effect them. That is not a good way to resolve conflict.

But any moderate tolerance has disappeared and all that has changes now PNAC rules. Cops baton people's head in now with their badges removed.

And they can and they have and they will continue to do so. Hence a new strategy needs to be developed for hot heads that think they're going to get a minor ticket and let off for good behaviour.

I think it is terrible that police released 28, yes 28 photos of people suspected of committing offences at the G20 demonstration.

"Police are reviewing thousands of hours of video footage and more than 10,000 images of the riots as they hunt those responsible."

And they only found 28 people they want to speak to! Shame police, shame.

Maybe you need to review the tapes and photos again. Clearly there were more than 28 people breaching the peace, acting in a riotous behaviour, assaulting police and damaging property.

These people need to be dealt with, so that all of the peaceful protesters can have their protest without having it marred by the criminal behaviour of a small minority.

What do you mean these people need to be dealt with? The G8 needs to be dealt with first. Then there would be no need to deal with these people.

These people want what those people want, that's us. We're all in the same boat.

These people who posted the material at the Age Newspaper need to be dealt with for not asking gov't the right questions and that is why those people stuck their neck out for us people to make a fuss about it.

The more crushed us people are the more of those people will stick their neck out for all the people who want change.

The media is for society not the other way around not for corporate control and hegemony of the populations worldwide. We all need to be concerned about police violence as well as mob violence and to prevent it from happening again we need our stories to be told and the G8 needs to be questioned.

Because the population had no way to get close enough to ask questions some of them decided to break down the barriers. Why do they have to do that when the media giants have security passes and access to the G8?

So if big media did their job barriers would not have to be breached protecting protesters and police alike from running head on into each other.

In short the G8 need to be made accountable too.

The Myth Of The Liberal Media

The propaganda of model news featuring Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman and Justin Lewis. How the media really work and who decides what is news.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8782509076175388309

Corporate Control of the Media

Sen. Bernie Sanders: If You Are Concerned About Health Care, Iraq, the Economy, Global Warming You Must Be Concerned About Corporate Control of the Media

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/137475.php

Bill Moyers: "Big Media is Ravenous

Bill Moyers: "Big Media is Ravenous. It Never Gets Enough. Always Wants More. And it Will Stop at Nothing to Get It. These Conglomerates are an Empire, and they are Imperial."

http://perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=42717

Christians United for Israel: New Christian Zionism Lobby Hopes to Rival AIPAC

We take a look at a new recently established group called Christians United for Israel - an evangelical organization that believes supporting expansionist policies of the Israeli government is: "a biblical imperative." We speak with investigative journalist Max Blumenthal who reports they lobbied the Bush administration to adopt a confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand in its attack on Lebanon.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/1326256

Wealth creation and economic prosperity are, under capitalism, based on principles of competition and survival of the fittest. The phenomenon of capitalism, which is scarcely two hundred years old, it is grounded in these dominant ideas. The notions are not strictly memes, because they are not ingrained in all members of the society, but they are potentially lethal. Not only can corporations fail because they can't adapt to discontinuous change and economic abundance; whole nations can be impoverished unnecessarily and societies can wither and die of anger, recriminations and blame for corporate and other institutional misdeeds and collapses.

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/114871.php

The U.S. government fined him $10,000 but Sacks has refused to pay. He has argued that the actual crime was not his humanitarian efforts but the U.S. sanctions. It has been estimated that the sanctions led to the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. His petition questions whether it was legal for the US to have knowingly caused the deaths of Iraqis through sanctions. Bert Sacks joins me now from Seattle.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/23/1530245

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California has sent a letter to every other member of the House urging them to participate in Saturday’s anti-war protest in Washington. She joins us to talk about her call and her resolution to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/137727.php

this whole extended dialogue about g20 is making me sick. it's juvenile and irrelevent. drop the outrage about the errosion of 'rights' by media and cops. drop the high-horse rants about violentor no. rather engage in a discussion (and critical reflection) about tactics and strategies to create change rather than whinging about problems.

Re: These people
by The Aussie Public Thursday January 25, 2007 at 02:08 PM

You ask who I am refering to when I say "these people"? I am refering to every single person who commited an offence at the G20. At no stage did I mention G8, and as far as I can tell, the main article is refering to G20.

I find it utterly amazing that you people quote United Nations rule and regulations, yet clearly you have no clue as to what state laws (all of which comply with these U.N. regulations) mean to you.

Every person I know was disgusted at those people who assaulted police and caused damage. As a taxpayer, I expect police to do everything in thier power to apprehend and interview every person reasonably suspected of commiting an offence at G20.

We have a legal system, and in that legal system people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. A person must not be arrested unless there is resonable grounds for believing they have commited an offence. I am pretty sure the police could use the video footage taken at G20 to form resonable grounds.

If you want change, stop being violent. The Aussie public is never going to jump on board if they see you as thugs and criminals!

And for goodness sake stop quoting U.N. resolutions. The laws of our sate and country comply with them, otherwise they would never have made it into legislation. If you do not like the laws of our country, either move, or get into politics yourself and change them.

My typo! However, even when wrath is explained to you it is obvious to me that you don't take time to review the material. A human being is not perfect. Tension is the outcome when people are being denied and some killed.

There is a difference between state power and resources and a human soul.

The crimes committed by the establishment are a 1,000 of times worse but I don't hear your dissent?

Thanks.

This very friendly welcome to the festival. What strikes me as significant here is how fully your rosy expectations of peace and love were borne out, while the rest of world was biting its nails worrying about the potential for a disaster. You had to be there...

"We gather together
To ask for the blessing
To make known
The wicked oppressing now cease from distressing
Sing praises to the Peace name
We forget not our own."
Howdy friend. What are we doing here at Bondi APEC in Sydney 2007?

That's not a question I promise to answer, 'cause I'm not even here yet-though I will be. These program booklets have to be prepared and printed up at least a few weeks in advance, and so I'm just sitting at home at my typewriter wondering what you and I will have to say to each other when we actually get together.

I may be standing behind you.

I love you. We're here, I think, to be together-the music is a large part of our celebration, but it isn't what we're celebrating.

That joy we feel is unlocked by the music & dancing bodies & smiling faces, but it isn't any gift from outside, each one of us carried it here in his own personal heart, hoping for a chance to be joyous with friends ... I hope it's happening. I know it's happening. "You were only waiting for this moment to arise."

We're here to learn to fly. We need each other's support. "Any day now . . ." This is a political event. An Aquarian convention. Politics is supposed to be stuff that shapes the world we live in together-thousands of people feeling good together is the strongest political statement that car-L be made at this time, it is the affirmation of Life, here we are, we're alive! And it leaves absolutely no doubt as to what sort of a world we want ours to be.

We are here to have fun, aren't we? If you came to this festival for any other reason, don't you - feel a little silly just now? What's happening here is not just the release of music into the air, that's only being done by a few people

If you mean by music what comes through an amplifier, what's happening here is the release of energy and every last one of us is taking part. It feels good, yes?

"if you smile at me, I will understand . . ." That's the politics of ecstasy. Tim Leary could outsmile Richard Nixon with both hands tied behind his back. President Dick would never agree to the contest. He needs a hand free for The Button.

I love rock music, it makes me feel alive, it lets me in on the secret that I'm not alone in the world. The I Ching says about rock festivals: "The sacred music and the splendor of the ceremonies aroused a strong tide of emotion that was shared by all hearts in unison, and that awakened a consciousness of the common origin of all creatures. In this way disunity was overcome and rigidity dissolved. A further means to the same end is co-operation in great general undertakings that set a high goal for the will of the people; in the common concentration on this goal, all barriers dissolve."

"Gathering Together. Success. The king approaches his temple." Well, I assume that applies to all of us. What we're doing here is celebrating, and at the same time we're checking each other out, and what we see is a bunch of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread. And hooray for us; we've been fearful angels too long; we fools are the last great hope of mankind, and I'm happy to say we're going to make it

Enjoy the festival, friends.

Plagiarised from:

http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/programwelcome.htm

Photo from:

http://www.livingpictures.org/imagesproducts/woodstock-earth/woodstockflag1.jpg

Related:

Stop the attack on our civil liberties!

In the aftermath of the overwhelmingly peaceful protests against G20 meeting, called to protest the policies of war and corporate globalisation, the Victorian Police Force has launched a crackdown of activists involved in the protest that amounts to a serious violation of civil liberties.

Stop the attack on our civil liberties!
Stop the crackdown on G20 protesters!

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/134067.php

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/134178_comment.php

Anarchist Bookfair: Meeting on the movement against the CPE in France

Militants of the ICC were at a number of meetings during October’s Anarchist Bookfair in London, among them one on the students’ struggles in France during spring 2006.

The French state had attempted to introduce the CPE, a law that would enable employers to dismiss people 26 years-old and younger, without having to give a reason, within the first 2 years of the job. There was widespread resistance throughout the universities and amongst young workers-to-be. They forced the French state to back down and withdrawn the CPE, through the organisation of their struggle and by reaching out to the working class in general.

Some people who been involved in the struggles in France had come to the Bookfair to relate their experience and give a perspective on the events. They saw a development from the struggles in France in 2003, because in 2006 there was a more violent response from the French state. They saluted the assemblies that had been created because they had ‘overwhelmed’ the unions’ initial control and because the government was eventually forced into an embarrassing climb-down. However, the fact that the unions had been able to take all the credit for this seemed to show that the movement hadn’t seriously challenged the unions’ ultimate control.

In response to this we tried to make a clear distinction between the union form of struggle and that of the student assemblies. The proletarian nature of the movement was shown in its ability to turn its combativity into the deployment of proletarian methods of organisation. The students wanted to generate a broader solidarity within the working class as a whole. In contrast the unions stood in the way of the extension of the struggle and workers’ taking it into their own hands. The speakers from France didn’t understand the difference. Instead they were euphoric about violent confrontations (like that at the Sorbonne) and applauded the rioting in Paris during Autumn 2005 (See WR 290 ‘Riots in the French suburbs: in face of despair, only the class struggle offers a future’).

In discussion before the meeting started properly, we’d already indicated how the broadest media coverage was given to events that linked the working class with mindless acts of violence, but deliberately made little reference to the student assemblies and the expressions of solidarity, both by students towards the working class and by workers across the generations towards the students.

The ‘facilitator’ of the meeting didn’t feel comfortable with discussion focusing on the student assemblies and wanted to move the discussion on. The meeting rejected this approach. People wanted to look more into the significance of the French anti-CPE struggle. There was a genuine curiosity in the methods adopted by the French students.

In particular there was a need to contrast, on the one hand, the movement for the greatest participation of workers and students in struggles and its use of necessary force with, on the other, the individual and conspiratorial violence characteristic of other social strata. As we said in WR 293 (April 2006 ‘Notes from the students struggles’):

“Not only does violence tend to discredit the movement within the rest of the class, but it also puts into question the sovereignty of the general assemblies since it takes place completely outside the latter’s control. In fact this last question - the question of control - is one of the most critical ones; the violence of the working class has nothing to do with the blind violence of the young hotheads at the Sorbonne or - it must be said - of many anarchist groups, above all because it is exercised and controlled collectively, by the class as a group. The student movement has used physical force (for example to barricade the university buildings and block entry to them): the difference between this and the confrontations at the Sorbonne is that the former actions are decided collectively and voted by the general assemblies while the ‘blockers’ have a mandate for their actions from their own comrades. The latter, precisely because they are uncontrolled by the movement, are of course the perfect terrain for the action of the lumpen and the agent provocateur, and given the way in which this violence has been used by the media, there is every reason to suppose that the provocateur has been present and stirring it up”. Duffy 2/12/6

it's the dog and p.o.n.i. show

people of NO interest.

how many can you name?
and why were they chosen?

soon not to be seen in a police lineup near you.....

D