By Peter Kemp, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW, on 2010-12-04

Dear Prime Minister
From the Sydney Morning Herald I note you made a comment of “illegal” on the matter of Mr Assange in relation to the ongoing leaks of US diplomatic cables.

Previously your colleague and Attorney General the Honourable McClelland announced an investigation of possible criminality by Mr Assange.

As a lawyer and citizen I find this most disturbing, particularly so when a brief perusal of the Commonwealth Criminal Code shows that liability arises under the Espionage provisions, for example, only when it is the Commonwealth’s “secrets” that are disclosed and that there must be intent to damage the Commonwealth.

Likewise under Treason law, there must be an intent to assist an enemy. Clearly, and reinforced by publicly available material such as Professor Saul’s excellent article:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-cry-over-wikil…
…Julian Assange has almost certainly committed no crime under Australian law in relation to his involvement in Wikileaks.

I join with Professor Saul also in asking you Prime Minister why has there been no public complaint to the US about both Secretaries of State Condaleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton being in major breach of International law ie UN Covenants, by making orders to spy on UN personnel, including the Secretary General, to include theft of their credit card details and communication passwords. Perhaps the Attorney General should investigate this clear prima facie evidence of crime (likely against Australian diplomats as well), rather than he attempts to prosecute the messenger of those crimes.

It is also disturbing that no Australian official has castigated Sweden for the shameful treatment Mr Assange has received ie his human rights abused, in that he has not been charged and served with papers in the English language regarding the evidence against him of alleged sexual offences. This is contrary to Article 6 of the European Covenant on Human Rights to which Sweden is a signatory nation.

Those offences remain unclear and the Swedish prosecutor Ms Ny appears to be making up the law as she wants. It appears now, by Ms Ny’s interpretation that when consensual sex occurs but if a condom breaks, the male party is liable to 2 years imprisonment for sexual assault. All this information is publicly available.

An Australian citizen is apparently being singled out for “special treatment” Prime Minister. There are legitimate concerns among citizens here that his treatment by the Swedes is connected to US interests which are against the activities of Wikileaks, and you will note the strident, outrageous (and illegal) calls inciting violence against him in the US in demands for his assassination, by senior influential US politicians.

Granted that in western political circles, Mr Assange is not flavour of the month, but what he is doing in my opinion, and in the opinion of many here and abroad, is vitally necessary to expose American foreign policy failures and potential war crimes and crimes against humanity–not for the purpose of damaging US interests but to make them accountable.

While we have close and a good relationship with the US, there is no doubt that US influence and power is declining. That we appear to be still posturing, (given that declining power and a new paradigm of privately enforced accountability) to the US on the issue of Wikileaks is, Prime Minister, deeply disappointing.

Yours Faithfully
Peter Kemp.

(Readers are encouraged contact the Australian Prime Minister here: http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/Email_your_PM)

This is a guest post by my friend and colleague Lucie Snape who has asked for a platform for this to posted to while she builds her own blog.

A few weeks ago I read a blog post by Jye Smith titled “Who are the social media experts?”  It was a great post and his closing statement really resonated with me “play nice”.

I thought about Jye’s blog post this morning when a few of the Twitterati took aim at the Communication Shutdown campaign.

It’s a global campaign to raise money for autism charities in more than 40 countries. Organisers are asking people to buy an online badge or CHAPP (charity app) and shut down their social networks for a day to demonstrate the social communication challenges faced by some autistic children.

Comments aimed at the campaign included:

Wait – let’s raise awareness about autism by NOT SPEAKING ABOUT IT. #shutdown #epicfail

“Raising Awareness is great, as long as it is to people motivated to DO SOMETHING”

Apparently a campaign to ‘raise awareness’ of autism by getting ppl to switch off SM on Monday

Seriously – the SM campaign is to get ppl to switch it off? That’s a strategy? #aSMEGneedstodie #shutdown

Wow. Why all the rage?

I am not involved with the PR, but it would seem clear to me that the campaign is not asking that people don’t talk about Autism rather it is trying to raise awareness of the initiative in the hope that awareness will convert to action. It would seem that as fair as awareness is concerned they’re  doing a decent job with some big name Aussies including Alex Perry, Brendan Cannon and Miranda Kerr lending their support.

Some people even think it’s a good idea:

Great cause, 4 of my brothers and sisters have autism/aspergers

Good on you for being part of the communication shutdown thing. Means alot to people who suffer from autism. All the best for it ! !

i am going to do it….shouldnt be too hard right?

Fantastic Cause our magazine will be shutting down all our social sites for the day !

Second point, raising awareness is great as long as it is followed by action. I agree and that’s where I think this campaign is trying to be different. Instead of offering a free Twibbon you must donate to Communication Shutdown in order to receive a virtual badge showing your support.

Action is often influenced by personal experience and emotions – someone we loved died of cancer, images of a harpooned whale enrages us, starving children in Africa make us cry. You can’t force someone to act, you can only make them aware of the issue, hope it hits the right nerve and offer a vehicle for action.

Just as you buy a daffodil for Daffodil Day or a badge for Legacy, aren’t these guys just standing on a metaphoric street corner trying to sell some badges? What’s so bad about that?  If Autism is an issue close to your heart then buy a badge in support and wear it on your virtual collar!

You might not think it’s the sexiest social media campaign going around but are we seriously going to hang them out to dry because their foray into social media isn’t up to our standards and we would have done a much better job and #aSMEGneedstodie?

Love it or hate it they are trying to do a good thing here and the more we shoot people down for trying, the more we are going to scare off those with good intentions from what is meant to be a positive experience.  If we think we know better then shouldn’t we focus our energies on supporting those who are less experienced in this space, offer advice and try to better understand the thinking behind a campaign before we criticise?

As for me, I put my money where my mouth is and bought my badge. Why?

Because, Dr James Morton is one of the organisers behind this campaign. He and his wife set up the AEIOU Foundation when their was son Andrew was diagnosed with Autism. The centre’s mission is “to enhance the lives of children with autism and their families through early intervention learning along with practical and caring support”. Frances Whiting tells how it all came about in this article for the Courier Mail, Finishing School.

Because, Dr Morton is Medical Director of Haematology-Oncology Clinics of Australasia and has dedicated his life saving the lives of others.

Because, against all the odds, Dr Morton saved my little brother’s life and for that I will be eternally grateful.

So, on November 1, I will be shutting down my Facebook and Twitter for the day in support of Communication Shutdown. Who’s going to join me?

every time i hear “we’ll stop the boats” i want to invite the man to a bare knuckle cage fight and pummel him. this strong reaction made me think, “why do i hate this man so much? i’ve not even met him?”

as i watched the twitter stream, i watched as other seemingly intelligent people descend into zealotry. then i thought about my own motivations and i came to the conclusion that for all this talk about ‘policies’ what we’re all really voting on is ideologies. does this statement get an reaction from you? does it make you feel righteous indignation?

we hide behind ‘policies’ to rationalise what essentially irrational. commentators in the media, on twitter and out on the street all passionately put forward the reasons why they vote one way or the other. that they are right and others are wrong. at the end of the day we vote based on an ideology. is there such a thing as the right ideology?

who researches the every party’s policies before voting? read them line by line have we?

or have we just read what the media have told us? how we choose to vote may have come from how our parents voted or whether we believe that refugees will take ‘australian jobs’. it’s ideology that makes us right, left, conservative, centre, green, blue, or red. yet people seem to use ‘policy’ as justification to call each other names and take the high moral ground on twitter. i think it’s time we got off our high horses and stopped pretending that we are these altruistic creatures wanting what is really best for the country. what we want is a country moulded to our beliefs and prejudices.

it’s not just this election either

i’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s every election in the history of humanity. do you think social media really won the election for obama? or was it the resounding message of “change” regardless of the medium? didn’t obama just have the message that everyone wanted to hear? did he not just stand for an ideology? one that resonated? one that people were ready for?

i voted greens

i voted greens because of an ideal. i voted greens because i believe in their ideals. that in 2010 gay people should be able to express their love just like straight people. i am a refugee, and many of my family came here on boats just after the vietnam war. so tony’s ‘stop the boats’ offends me.

my best friend is a liberal voter

he votes liberal because he hates the union movement. he cannot name a single pro union piece of legislation but just can’t bring himself to vote for labor. he’s also from blue state perth. i have other friends that vote for a party because their parents voted for that party.

electorates remain ‘safe seats’ for parties because people identify with that party. go out west and people vote labor. go to sydney’s north shore and people vote liberal.

so here’s the crux of the issue

ultimately, in a democracy it’s the most popular ideology that wins power. that’s not to say that there are not any rights or wrongs, but for the most part our fellow australians have just walked a different path to us, and have different views.

so whatever you believe in, express it. debate it passionately, but don’t resort to the argument that my party’s ‘policies’ are better than your party’s ‘policies’ because really, what it’s all about is: “my prejudices are just different to your prejudices”.

and mr abbott, if you’re reading this, actually, i don’t hate you, but your ideologies are definitely not mine. for the sake of our nation, i hope more people are like me, than you.

now see transparent government in action!

over my break i consumed a lot of media but didn’t do much contribution. i did a lot of thinking and introspection and have come to a resolution: spend less time commenting on other people’s campaigns.

i noticed that this particular industry is particularly fond of critiquing and sledging other people’s work, campaigns, and sometimes it even gets personal. i’ve been guilty of doing it on more than one occasion. i don’t know what drives it, whether it’s competitiveness, insecurity or schadenfreude but it’s rife through the industry. anyway, it’s going to stop coming from me.

social media and marketing campaigns are difficult. unlike my old profession, there are often no right or wrong answers. especially now when we’re all still trying to work it out what works and what doesn’t. i’ve worked on a lot of social media campaigns and it’s damn hard to get right.

so no more critiquing from me. i think teddy roosevelt said it best:

It’s not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or when the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worth cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.

well it occurred to me that a pure online strategy for the yellow pages wouldn’t work. what if the electricity was out? of course you could always call directory assistance but i don’t know about you but i have voip. no electricity, no modem. no modem, no voip. mobile phone? what if it was flat?

now whoever the creative agency for yellow pages is, you’ve just got freebie for one of your clever tvcs.

the picture you see next door is a select of the cards sitting in my “too much to carry around tray”. i’m sure at some point they were a novel and interesting way to identify yourself or provide information, but do we need all this plastic today? who has a wallet big enough to carry all this around? surely we can use electronic means by way of something you already carry? like a mobile phone for instance.

i beg you. end the the plastic card madness lest we all require sherpas to follow us around to carry our little plastic cards!

it has been a long time since we have spoken, i dare say it’s close to never now, but it has not stopped me from observing your farming business from afar. it appears you’re in a spot of bother and felt it would be remiss of me not to at least offer a different point of view. we are distant relatives after all, even though our relationship goes back to the origin of our species.

you have been grazing cattle on the same lands now for some time now but those cattle have stopped coming. i don’t know if it has something to do with this dreaded Global Warming i keep hearing the young kids talk about. i’m no enviro-mentalist rupert, but i do know a drought when i see one. you are a wise landowner rupert, so i don’t mean to second guess your response to this drought. so can you explain it to me? perhaps if i paraphrase in my own words you can clarify if i interpret you correctly:

1. the cattle have stopped coming to your pastures to graze, so the farmers have stopped paying you
2. your response is to now fence off your grazing lands, and charge not just the farmers, but also each head of cattle who comes through the door.

forgive me if I am wrong rupert, but i don’t know if this bovine music festival approach will work.

may i offer you a suggestion? instead of charging cattle, why don’t you buy the grazing lands that the cattle are grazing? with your vast resources surely this is a better approach. then perhaps the farmers will start paying you again because you own the lands on which their cows want to graze?

i hear that landowner arrington has a great property he calls “techcrunch” and landowner huffington has a property she calls “huffington post”. If the will cattle graze, the farmers will pay.

i beg your forgiveness rupert if i have been impertinent, but i write this letter with only the sincerest of intentions. you have been very good at tending to your old lands, but some say, wiser men than i, our best products will be our downfall in the end. words to that effect anyway, i think the fellow’s name was clayton m. christiansen, went to a fancy school.

anyway, i wish you all the best. that’s all the free advice i have, you know where to find me, my contract rates are reasonable.

humbly yours

jonathan nguyen

probably, but not all the time. what is good is that his people are transparent when it’s not him updating his twitter page. see below.

highlighted in green, the team post, clearly marked from the kevinpm team. highlighted in pink is a tweet that would seem to be from kev.

i wouldn’t expect him to tweet all the time or read and respond to all of his own tweets. let’s face it, it would be a full time job. the man probably doesn’t read all of his own email or answer all of his own calls.

what will be interesting to see whether he takes the feedback and do something with it.

let’s see what happens with the internet censorship issue because i’m sure there will be a few people asking him about that one.

to make matters worse, they have brought pressure to bear on a critic of this move.

mark newton, a network engineer for isp, internode, wrote a letter of dissent to his member of parliament.

the government retaliated, attempting to force mark to tone down his dissent through his employer, internode. i won’t go through the entire saga, which asher sums up well enough in his article at the smh.

if you consider yourself a net professional, take action.

if you consider yourself an advocate of free speech, take action.

if you consider yourself a resident in a democracy, take action.

the government’s clean feed plan does not just filter out child pornography as the government trying to sell it? how many australians are child pornographers? why should we be treated as such?

the blacklist they propose can be expanded to any topic, as they have shown this week, they are not afraid of trying to silence dissenters. if they have the power to block your blog because you don’t like their policies, they can.

who has the right to determine what you can and read and think?

this is not iran, this is not china. do not allow a bunch of bureaucrats to censor you!