Protecting old growth trees and saving Banyabba Koalas in March 2023

 

The Echo, 10 March 2023:

View over Valerie’s boots at the logging taking place in Doubleduke State Forest. Photo supplied

The magnificent old trees in a grove known as the Gully of the Giants are still standing this morning. They might not be so lucky tomorrow. The trees are part of Doubleduke State Forest, west of Evan’s Head, being logged under the auspices of the NSW Government’s Forestry Corporation.

Logging couldn’t go ahead this morning because yesterday, Save Banyabba’s Koalas Valerie Thompson, bought the ‘Gully Giants’ a reprieve. Logging was unable to commence due to the logging machinery having been ‘captured’ by the ropes suspending Valerie’s tree platform.

‘I relish the opportunity to spend the night in the forest. I’m hoping I will hear a forest owl or the screech of a yellow-bellied glider, or maybe the bellow of a koala,’ said Valerie.

‘These animals are why I’m here. They depend on the hollows in these old trees to survive. When the trees go, the animals will go too. It could be 100 years until there are trees big enough to provide the size hollows they need.

Some ‘Giants’ already gone

‘At the moment it’s not looking good. We had hoped that the Forestry Corporation would leave these giants, but we’ve seen one on a log truck and another in the log dump.

‘I felt compelled to do something, hoping against hope that as a result of my helping to bring this travesty to public attention someone in authority might be prepared to negotiate. I understand a formal complaint is being submitted today about Forestry’s breaches and calling for an immediate Stop Work Order. I’d be happy to free the machines if they’ll let the old trees live in peace.’

As Valerie sits in the tree waiting for the police to do the bidding of the Forestry Corporation, Greens Senator Janet Rice, is introducing legislation into the Federal Parliament to end native forest logging.

The Ending Native Forest Logging 2023 Bill ‘If passed, will immediately halt the destruction of Australia’s precious native forests and close the loophole used by the logging industry to skirt our national environment laws,’ said Senator Rice.

Valerie said that according to the Australian National University survey the majority of Australians want the logging of native forests to stop….. 

Wednesday 14 March 2023 Save Banyabba Koalas announced on Facebook that:

A very small crew off protectors just faced of an angry crew of Forestry corp workers keeping them away from the Old Growth in Doubleduke Forest.

We need numbers to keep them out for good

#StandUp4Forests

#EndNativeForestLogging

#savebanyabbakoalas

Images: Save Banyabba Koalas

Sydney-based Dunghutti artist Blak Douglas wins 2022 Archibald Prize with portrait of Wiradjuri artist Karla Dickens standing "knee-deep in floodwater in her hometown of Lismore flanked by foreboding rain clouds, one for each day the rain fell and drowned the Northern Rivers"

The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 May 2022:

Sydney-based Dunghutti artist Blak Douglas painted 14 dark, flat-bottomed clouds hovering around the fierce face of Karla Dickens for this year’s Archibald Prize-winning portrait. A signature element of his art, he normally draws his clouds “white and fluffy, just like our governments”.

But for Moby Dickens, Dickens is portrayed knee-deep in floodwater in her hometown of Lismore flanked by foreboding rain clouds, one for each day the rain fell and drowned the Northern Rivers.

Archibald Prize 2022 winner, Blak Douglas ‘Moby Dickens’.
CREDIT: BLAK DOUGLAS

In its 101 years, the Archibald Prize has regularly managed to capture the zeitgeist but with Moby Dickens Douglas has painted one of the most politically charged portraits in recent memory. Highly recommended was Jude Rae for her portrait of scientist, engineer and inventor Dr Saul Griffith who argues rapid electrification is Australia’s path to net-zero.

In the midst of an election campaign, both paintings carry powerful messages to politicians to act on climate change. More explicitly, Douglas says his portrait of his dear friend stands as a call to vote out the Morrison government.

“This painting stands to represent the irony that under the Coalition government the arts is continually kicked in the guts,” Douglas told this masthead. “Here we’ve got the winner of the greatest prize on the continent, which gets all the adulation and media attention, speaking about the importance of global warming and climate change – to a government that consistently kicked us in the guts by sapping arts funding to pump it back to opening new coalmines. This painting is extremely significant in that sense.”…..

Online violence has become the new frontline in journalism safety and women journalists sit at the epicentre of risk

Social, cultural, environmental and community activists because they are often highly visible in their own local areas have long been subject to anonymous death threats, not so anonymous menacing behaviour, nuisance calls, minor vandalism and, even after the advent of social media, defamatory whispering campaigns. 

In decades past, journalists were seemingly not as visible to the purveyors of hate within communities which were contesting local and regional issues.

Once the Internet arrived it became a vehicle which could potentially intensify the hate directed towards such activists and at times it did. Since February 2004 highly organised bad actors have turned their attention towards the mainstream media and begun ripping away at the reputations of female journalists.

Here is a recent research discussion paper which makes some interesting observations.......

UNESCO, Posetti, J. et al, (April 2021) Research Discussion Paper, The Chilling: Global trends in online violence against women journalists, excerpts:

INTRODUCTION

There is nothing virtual about online violence. It has become the new frontline in journalism safety - and women journalists sit at the epicentre of risk. Networked misogyny and gaslighting intersect with racism, religious bigotry, homophobia and other forms of discrimination to threaten women journalists - severely and disproportionately. Threats of sexual violence and murder are frequent and sometimes extended to their families. This phenomenon is also bound up with the rise of viral disinformation, digital conspiracy networks and political polarisation. The psychological, physical, professional, and digital safety and security impacts associated with this escalating freedom of expression and gender equality crisis are overlapping, converging and frequently inseparable. They are also increasingly spilling offline, sometimes with devastating consequences…….

The research underpinning this paper consists of: a global survey of 901 journalists from 125 countries conducted in five languages; long-form interviews with 173 international journalists, editors, and experts in the fields of freedom of expression, human rights law, and digital safety; two big data case studies assessing over 2.5 million posts on Facebook and Twitter directed at two prominent women journalists (Maria Ressa in the Philippines and Carole Cadwalladr in the UK) undertaken to validate the self-reporting of our interviewees and survey respondents with objective data; 15 detailed country case studies; and a literature review covering hundreds of scholarly and civil society research publications. A team of 24 international researchers6 from 16 countries contributed to the study……

The chilling effect

Online violence against women journalists is designed to: belittle, humiliate, and shame; induce fear, silence, and retreat; discredit them professionally, undermining accountability journalism and trust in facts; and chill their active participation (along with that of their sources, colleagues and audiences) in public debate. This amounts to an attack on democratic deliberation and media freedom, encompassing the public’s right to access information, and it cannot afford to be normalised or tolerated as an inevitable aspect of online discourse, nor contemporary audience-engaged journalism…..

A worsening crisis

Online attacks on women journalists appear to be increasing significantly, as this study demonstrates, particularly in the context of the ‘shadow pandemic’ of violence against women during COVID-19. The pandemic has changed journalists’ working conditions, making them yet more dependent on digital communications services and social media channels. The emergence of the ‘disinfodemic’ has also increased the toxicity of the online communities within which journalists work, making journalists “sitting ducks” according to the UK National Union of Journalists’ Michelle Stanistreet, interviewed for this study……

Another major issue in evidence is the role of political actors - including presidents and elected representatives, party officials and members - in instigating and fuelling online violence campaigns against women journalists. Additionally, partisan, mainstream and fringe news media can be shown to amplify such attacks, triggering ‘pile-ons’ that escalate the risks of online violence morphing into offline assault or causing significant psychological injury……

Our research confirmed that online violence against women journalists comes from State officials, and is increasingly associated with legal harassment. In Pakistan, founder of the Digital Rights Foundation, Nighat Dad, said: “The attacks are made by people declaring affiliation with the ruling party, and in the coordinated campaigns women journalists are referred to as peddlers of ‘fake news’, enemies of the people and accused of taking bribes. Some journalists [have] shared that after official harassment, their social media accounts are bombarded with gendered slurs and abuse by accounts displaying the ruling party’s flag or the Prime Minister’s picture on their accounts.” ......

These methods of attack are growing more sophisticated, and they are evolving with technology. They are also increasingly networked and fuelled by political actors. This points to the need for responses to online violence to grow equally in technological sophistication and collaborative coordination. Another point highlighted by our research: most women journalists do not report or make public the online attacks they experience, in line with low levels of reporting when it comes to violence against women more broadly. As our research participants also demonstrated, many media employers still appear reluctant to take online violence seriously. This aligns with the evident failure of the internet communications companies - whose social networks, messaging and search services facilitate much of the harassment, intimidation, abuse and threats targeting women journalists - to take effective action to address this freedom of expression and gender equality crisis…..

This study shows that male politicians will also use lawsuits as weapons against female journalists and, multiple defamation actions may be instigated by wealthy individuals who are often political donors.

Online newspapers which publish the work of female investigative journalists sometimes come under attack. In August 2020, Guardian Media Group took legal action to shut down a website generating fake Guardian headlines and byline profiles which were being shared with the trending Twitter hashtag #TrollingTheGuardian.

The full discussion paper can be read at:

https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/the-chilling.pdf.

PEOPLE POWER: Grafton Loop of the Knitting Nannas six years old and still going strong

The Grafton Loop of the Knitting Nannas Against Gas was officially launched six years ago on 19 October 2012.

The local nannas first began knitting in peaceful opposition to coal seam gas exploration and mining in the early days of the Glenugie blockade of a Metgasgo CSG test drill site in the Clarence Valley.

As part of the wider NSW Northern Rivers movement they helped keep the north-east "Gasfield Free!"

The Grafton Loop continues to be active on environmental issues and regularly hold knit-ins outside local state and federal MPs electoral offices.

This is the Grafton Loop on 13 December 2018 outside Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan's office, accompanied by "Nanna Kerry", a mascot veteran of mining protests in south-east Queensland.

This letter was sent to Kevin Hogan on the same day.....

Letter to Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan from Grafton Loop of the Knitting Nannas Against Gas, NSW Austr... by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/395886572/Letter-to-Nationals-MP-for-Page-Kevin-Hogan-from-Grafton-Loop-of-the-Knitting-Nannas-Against-Gas-NSW-Australia

Way to go, Nannas!

The Turnbull Government is about to decide what is in the "public interest" and what is "fair and accurate reporting"...

And how the Turnbull Government couches these definitions in relation to national security and classified information may decide if a whistleblower or journalist ends up spending two years in an Australian gaol.

Excerpts from National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 currently before the Parliament of Australia:

122.4 Unauthorised disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers and former Commonwealth officers

 (1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person communicates information; and

(b) the person made or obtained the information by reason of his or her being, or having been, a Commonwealth officer or otherwise engaged to perform work for a Commonwealth  entity; and

(c) the person is under a duty not to disclose the information; and

(d) the duty arises under a law of the Commonwealth.

           Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) Absolute liability applies in relation to paragraph (1)(d)

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in 10 this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3)).

122.5 Defences

Powers, functions and duties in a person’s capacity as a 4 Commonwealth officer etc. or under arrangement……

Information communicated in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

(4) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence by a person against this Division relating to the communication of information that the person communicated the information in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in 24 this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3)).

Information communicated to a court or tribunal

(5) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence by a person against this Division relating to the communication of information that the person communicated the information to a court or tribunal (whether or not as a result of a requirement).

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3))......

Information dealt with or held for the purposes of fair and accurate reporting…

(6) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence by a person against this Division relating to the dealing with or holding of information that the person dealt with or held the information:

(a) in the public interest (see subsection (7)); and

(b) in the person’s capacity as a journalist engaged in fair and accurate reporting. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3))......

Excerpts from Advisory Report On The National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage And Foreign Interference) Bill 2017, 7 June 2018:

SECRECY OFFENCES - DEFENCES AND OTHER MATTERS

Recommendation 26

5.87 The Committee recommends that the following proposed defences be broadened to cover all dealings with information, rather than being limited to communication of information:

§ proposed section 122.5(3) – relating to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner,

§ proposed section 122.5(4) – relating to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013,

§ proposed section 122.5(5) – relating information provided to a court or tribunal, and

§ proposed section 122.5(8) – relating to information that has been previously communicated. 

Recommendation 27

5.90 The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General’s proposed amendments to the defence for journalists at proposed section 122.5(6), and the associated amendments at 122.5(7), be implemented. This includes expanding the defence to all persons engaged in reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial content in news media where the person reasonably believed that dealing with or holding the information was in the public interest.

The Committee also recommends that the Government consider further refinements to the proposed defence in order to

§ make explicit that editorial support staff are covered by the defence, including legal advisors and administrative staff,

§ ensure editorial staff and lawyers, who are engaging with the substance of the information, be required to hold a reasonable belief that their conduct is in the public interest, and

§ allow administrative support staff working at the direction of a journalist, editor or lawyer who holds the reasonable belief, to benefit from the defence.

The Australian Attorney-General and Liberal MP for Pearce Christian Porter sent out this media release on 7 June 2018:

Attorney-General, Christian Porter, welcomed the release today of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Government’s National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017.

"This is a major step forward in securing passage of this critical legislation and protecting Australia’s democratic systems from Foreign Interference, and it is my expectation that the Bill will be considered and passed during the next sitting period later this month," the Attorney-General said.

"The Committee has made 60 recommendations, the large majority of which are minor changes to definitions and drafting clarifications. The most substantive changes are those that adopt the Government’s proposed amendments which I submitted to the Committee as part of its deliberations earlier this year.

"Those Government amendments expanded the public interest defence for journalists and created separate graduated offences for commonwealth officers and non-commonwealth officers. The amendments were designed to strike the best possible balance between keeping Australia safe and not impeding the ordinary and important work of journalists and media organisations.

"In addition to minor drafting amendments and the adoption of the substantive Government amendments that I provided earlier this year, the additional substantive changes now recommended include that:

*There be a reduction to the maximum penalties for the proposed new secrecy offences, and to require the consent of the Attorney-General to any prosecution under these proposed new secrecy offences;

* That all secrecy offences in other Commonwealth legislation are reviewed; and

* Clarification that the journalism defence extends to all editorial, legal and administrative staff within the news organisation.

"Even in the time that it has taken to consider the Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill, the threat environment has changed and become more acute. As senior ASIO officials have said repeatedly in recent months, we now live in a time of unprecedented foreign intelligence activity against Australia with more foreign agents, from more foreign powers, using more tradecraft to engage in espionage and foreign interference than at any time since the Cold War."

"Given the rapid change in the threat environment it is the Government’s intention to consider the report and recommendations for amendments very quickly and my expectation is that the Bill, in essentially the form now recommend by the Committee, should be passed through Parliament during the next sitting period later this month; noting of course the primary and most significant recommendation of the report is that the Bill be passed."

The Attorney-General said this Bill and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill were both critical to modernising our national security laws as part of the Turnbull Government’s commitment to keep Australians safe and the Attorney-General wanted to make particular note of the hard work of the Committee in the last two weeks to produce this most recent Report.

"Safeguarding Australia’s national security will always remain the Turnbull Government’s number one priority and the Committee’s role in considering and making amendments to national security legislation is at the centre of a process that has seen ten tranches of national security laws passed since 2014, with the Government accepting 128 recommendations of the Committee, resulting in 293 Government amendments," the Attorney-General said.

"This process was conducted squarely in the national interest and represented a real fulfilment of Australians expectations for cooperative bipartisan conduct when serious national security issues are at stake. On this point I would like to personally thank the Chair Andrew Hastie MP, the Shadow Attorney–General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP, and Deputy Chair, the Hon Anthony Byrne MP, for their skilled and good faith dealings with my office to deliver recommendations which ultimately improve the Bill."

It goes without saying that incorporated community organisations, grassroots activists and social media bloggers/commentators are not afforded the protection of any detailed set of defences set out in the bill or in report recommendations.

On 8 June 2018 this was how the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and World Wildlife Fund - Australia saw their position under the provisions of this bill and review recommendations:

WWF-Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation say charities who hold the Australian Government to account on its environmental record, could be charged under proposed foreign interference and espionage laws.

Both groups say changes recommended by a bipartisan committee, to address “overreach” concerns with the Bill, don’t go far enough.

“We could still be charged with espionage just for doing our job, which is a ridiculous situation,” said WWF-Australia CEO Dermot O’Gorman.

Charities such as WWF-Australia and ACF are often sought out by international bodies to provide independent analysis and a scientific assessment on the Australian Government’s environmental performance.

If either organisation briefed the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on failings to address threats to endangered species they could be charged with espionage. 

Or if they gave evidence to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on shortfalls in Australia’s record on the environment they could face espionage charges. 

“Providing independent analysis is core business for environmental organisations trying to save Australia’s forests and threatened species,” Mr O’Gorman said.

“Would the 2050 Plan to save the Great Barrier Reef have happened without attention from UNESCO?”

ACF Acting Chief Executive Officer, Dr Paul Sinclair said: “Protests and advocacy may make some politicians uncomfortable, but they are essential ingredients of a vibrant democracy and healthy environment.

“Our security is of course important. But restricting civil society advocacy in its name is dangerous and would limit the community’s ability to hold the powerful to account for any damage they cause to our clean air, clean water and safe climate.

“All parties must work to rewrite this bill to strengthen protections for the public oversight, free expression and peaceful protest that makes our democracy strong.”

These conservation organisations have some reason to be concerned as committal for trial for an espionage or foreign interference offence is essentially a political decision taken by the Attorney-General, given s93.1 of National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 requires consent from the Attorney-General to proceed.

Given the antipathy displayed by the Abbott and Turnbull Coalition Governments towards any form of organised political, social or environmental activism, it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which a federal government would act maliciously against those opposing its policy positions or actions and use the provisions in this bill to effect such an act.