Thailand slowly returns to normal

Bangkok and surrounding districts are slowly returning to normal despite enduring a fifth successive day of emergency rule. The government has extended the Thai New Year's holiday for the rest of the week for "public safety" in case the opposition movement regroup. Today Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva pledged to call elections once stability is restored. Yesterday was the first day since the weekend, the so-called Red Shirt have not been out on the streets demanding the resignation of Abhisit’s four-month-old administration The current Prime Minister was appointed in December after a constitutional court banned that the former government loyal to Thaksin Shinawatra.

The red shirts are followers of the former populist Prime Minister now in exile and are officially called the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). They wear red to distinguish themselves from pro-monarchical urban elite followers of the Peoples' Alliance for Democracy (PAD) who wear yellow. PAD protests were instrumental in the overthrow of Thaksin’s rule by military coup in September 2006. Thaksin still retains widespread support among Thailand’s rural poor. His UDD followers claim Abhisit is a puppet of the military and have called on him to resign.

Last month 2,000 protesters began holding sit-in protests outside government offices, and prevented the cabinet from meeting. On the weekend, Red Shirt protesters caused major international embarrassment when they stormed a venue in Pattaya forcing the cancellation of a 16 nation regional summit of Asia Pacific leaders. Abhisit responded by declaring a state of emergency. On 12 April, the Thai government also revoked Thaksin’s passport in absentia.

Matters worsened on Sunday when protesters took over the major Din Daeng intersection in the capital. The choice was strategic as it blocked the crossing that led to Bangkok's main military base. At 4am Monday morning, the army made its first charge which drove away the red shirts. By sunrise, the army had control of the intersection while the protesters had retreated to the roads to Victory monument and the city centre.

For several hours there was an uneasy truce. But at mid-morning, the troops were on the march again. Using a drum beat from their batons and riot shields, they advanced on the protesters. The red shirts greeted them with petrol bombs and rocks and set fire to buses and tyres. Soldiers responded by firing at the demonstrators causing dozens of injuries. The protesters scattered among burning vehicles while the army gave chase. The UDD claim two people were killed and 113 injured in the clashes, though the government denies this.

Protesters were then surrounded by heavily armed soldiers for almost 24 hours, prompting the leaders to give in to avoid further bloodshed. On Tuesday protesters finally ended a three-week siege of Abhisit's offices. In a televised address to the nation later that day, Prime Minister Abhisit said people were dispersing and the situation was returning to normal. One UDD supporter admitted the military had made it too dangerous for him to wear the red shirt. Pairoj Chotsripanporn, a 52-year old trader, said he had now swapped the colour for something more neutral. "We will be attacked by this military-backed government,” said Pairoj. “But we will not stop."

Meanwhile the man behind the demonstrations continues to elude Thai authorities. Thaksin has been on the run since 2006 and Thailand has an arrest warrant out on him. Yesterday Associated Press reported he had been issued a diplomatic passport by Nicaragua. AP said he was appointed an "ambassador on a special mission”. However, the Thai online site Matichon has disputed this claim. They quoted a letter from the Nicaraguan embassy in Mexico to Thai embassy issued yesterday saying that the report was unfounded.

Thaksin spoke to French broadcaster France 24 overnight but did not comment on the passport rumours. Instead he urged King Bhumibol Adulyadej to intervene. “I have urged his majesty to intervene. He is the only person that can intervene in this incident, otherwise the violence will become wider and also the confrontation would be more and more,” he said. He also pledged to continue to give "moral support" to the protesters.

The Hillsborough Disaster: “They're killing us, Bruce, they're killing us”

Today’s article commemorates the 20th anniversary of Britain’s worst football disaster: the Hillsborough tragedy which claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool fans. The facts in this article are mostly drawn from the official Taylor Report (attached in zip file) as well as the personal recollection of Liverpool's then goalkeeper Bruce Grobbelaar.

On Saturday 15 April 1989, Liverpool were drawn to play Nottingham Forest in an English FA Cup Semi-Final. It was a repeat of the 1988 semi between the same two clubs and the FA chose the same neutral venue that was a “success” the previous year: Hillsborough, Sheffield. However Liverpool fans were not pleased. South Yorkshire police would only agree to the 1989 game if they repeated the 1988 arrangement where Liverpool fans were held in the smaller “away” end of the ground so they could be funnelled quickly back to the motorway westward to Lancashire.

As a result Liverpool were allocated 24,000 tickets compared to Forest’s 30,000, despite the fact that Liverpool’s average home attendance was substantially higher than the Nottingham club. And because there was less standing room at the away end, Liverpool’s allocation was more expensive as well as smaller (the game cost £12 to sit and £6 to stand). Liverpool had tried to switch ends in 1988 but police were adamant. They said it would have involved rival supporters crossing paths and “creating a risk of disorder”. And when the two teams were drawn to play again in 1989, police held to the previous year’s precedent saying “any change would lead to confusion”.

However the one key change that did lead to confusion was in the South Yorkshire constabulary itself. In 1988, policing was the responsibility of veteran Chief Superintendent Brian Mole but he was replaced as local commander just three weeks before the 1989 game. His replacement was newly promoted Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield. On the day, the new man at the helm had control of 1,122 police officers (38 per cent of South Yorkshire’s total force). However Duckenfield had not personally policed a match at the ground in ten years before the game.

Sheffield Wednesday (Hillsborough's owners) also had 376 stewards on duty on the day. They were assisted by a computerised operation which issued a warning pulse when any section of the ground got to within 15 percent of its permitted capacity. However what the system could not do was monitor the distribution of fans in each pen within the section. Unlike the Kop end where the Forest fans stood, the away end at Leppings Lane was divided into pens so that home and away fans could be segregated in the event where both had to be accommodated at that end of the ground. Although in theory it was the stewards (representing the owners) who were responsible for seating arrangements at the ground, in practice it was police who managed it. And police procedure was to let the fans “find their own level” within the pens.

It was a warm sunny Spring Saturday that greeted those fans as they approached Hillsborough that day. The 3pm kickoff was a 54,000 sell-out and many more people came to Sheffield without tickets. Although some Liverpool fans drank heavily before the game, there was no sign of any alcohol trouble. The mood was good-humoured. An hour before the game, Forest fans greatly outnumbered Liverpool inside the ground. The one train from Merseyside arrived at 2pm and its 350 passengers were escorted to the ground by police. By now, those who drove to Sheffield were also in the area and the crowd was becoming congested in the narrow streets around Leppings Lane. There was no longer a separate queue for each turnstile but one great phalanx of people across the whole approach area.

But there was still no sign of panic. Police monitoring the situation on video cameras at 2.30pm still reckoned they could get everyone inside the ground in time for the 3pm kick-off. In any case, as Superintendent Duckenfield reminded his officers, a delay could only be authorised in the event of fog on the Pennines or traffic jams on the motorway. It would not be countenanced, he said, just because fans were arriving late to the ground - even in large numbers.

In the next 35 minutes it all went horribly wrong. As is usual, most fans wanted to congregate in the central pens behind the goal. By 2.50pm these two were seriously overcrowded although the wing pens still had plenty of room. Meanwhile the crush outside the gates grew worse as more people arrived. The seven Leppings Lane terrace turnstiles could not process the numbers quickly enough as people outside fretted they would miss the kick-off. As the pressure grew, some women and children began to faint.

At 2.45pm police outside the ground called for reinforcements. Appeals to the crowd to stop pushing were ignored. There were now 5,000 people trapped in the phalanx in the narrow area outside the ground. A constable radioed his superiors asking for the game to be delayed. His request was turned down. Seriously worried that fatalities could occur, a superintendent outside the ground requested Duckenfield three times for the gates to be opened. At 2.52pm Duckenfield finally acceded to the request.

In the next five minutes 2,000 people stormed through the central gate and most them headed straight on to the central pens. It didn’t help there was a subtle downward gradient easing their passage in that direction. Fans spoke of being swept off their feet and could not resist the push towards the already overcrowded pens. At 2.54pm the two teams emerged onto the field creating a great surge of anticipation among the crowd. Most fans in the two central pens were uncomfortable and many were in distress. Some were already finding it difficult to breathe. Still the flow continued through the tunnels. Those at the very front were being crushed against the perimeter fencing and began asking for the gate to be opened onto the field. In the deafening noise, police patrolling the perimeter did not realise there was a problem and ignored their requests.

More gates were opened outside the ground under intense pressure of the people outside, some of whom did not have tickets. The game kicked off on schedule at 3pm. Fans crushed inside the central pens began climbing the fence to escape to the less crowded pens. Others attempted to climb onto the field but were pushed back by police fearing a pitch invasion. Near the front, those weakened to the point of collapse were now dying on their feet.

At 3.04pm Liverpool striker Peter Beardsley struck a shot against the crossbar at the other end of the ground. The Liverpool fans roared and began surging forward again. Normally after a surge, the fans retreat but this time there was nowhere to retreat to. The force of numbers smashed two crash barriers in one of the central pens and propelled many fans into the front fence. But police watching on video cameras assumed it was an attempted pitch invasion. So instead of summoning ambulances, they called for dog handlers.

Finally one senior policeman, Superintendent Roger Greenwood realised something was going horribly wrong. He tried in vain to ask those at the front to move back. When he saw that was impossible, he radioed his superiors for the game to be abandoned. The control tower did not receive the message and he signalled wildly with his hands. Finally without waiting for further orders, Greenwood ran on to the field and told the referee to stop the game.

Unbelievably the game was almost six minutes old before it was called off. The damage had already been done. The steps towards the central pens were congested with bodies alive and dead. Fans on the upper tier dragged up those they could. Police called in to preserve public order suddenly found a catastrophe on their hands. They were confronted with victims who were blue in the face and incontinent. Their mouths were open, eyes starting and vomiting. The dead and injured were laid out on the field. As the scale of the carnage unfolded, fans turned their hostility towards the police and began shouting abuse, spitting at them, and assaulting them. Press photographers who took photos of the dead were also a target.

Although St John’s Ambulance staff were on the scene, there was no public address call for doctors and nurses until 3.30pm. There were only six stretchers in the ground so fans improvised and tore down hoardings to take casualties off the scene. Throughout all of this Superintendent Duckenfield stayed in the control room, unaware of the scale of the disaster until he got the request for a fleet of ambulances. His boss Assistant Chief Constable Jackson was attending the game and went to the control room to ask Duckenfield what was happening. The Superintendent could not tell him. Jackson had to go down to ground level to find out for himself.

Duckenfield also deliberately withheld giving information out over the public address system for fear of everyone leaving together hampering rescue efforts. The problem was that the Forest fans assumed the problem was because Liverpool fans were causing trouble and began taunting them. This further infuriated Liverpool fans on the field who rushed towards the Forest end. Their path was blocked by a row of police officers who stood on the halfway line who otherwise did nothing. Those needing help regarded the actions of these passive policemen as further insensitivity.

Still the confusion continued. When fire officers arrived at the ground, no one knew why they were called. One Police Inspector told them “I don’t really think we need you”. And by the time they arrived on the field with resuscitation cylinders and cutting equipment, it was too late. At 3.56pm Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish spoke to the restive crowd and called for calm. After another fifteen minutes the game was officially abandoned and the entire stadium emptied in an orderly fashion. By 4.30pm ambulances had taken 172 people to two nearby hospitals.

Meanwhile, the Sheffield Wednesday gymnasium was transformed into a makeshift morgue and casualty clearing area. As more bodies were piled in, the atmosphere became gradually more chaotic and harrowing. Recriminations and scuffles broke out as people looked for missing relatives and friends. There was an atmosphere of utter shock. 95 people died on the day and one died four days later. All were Liverpool fans. Another 765 people were injured. Of those dead, blood samples showed that only six had more than 120 milligrams percent of alcohol.

Liverpool goalkeeper Bruce Grobbelaar was the closest person on the field to the tragedy as the game kicked off. From behind his goal, anguished fans shouted at him for help while he prepared to take a goal kick. He could hear them say: "They're killing us, Bruce, they're killing us.” As Grobbelaar took the kick he wondered who was killing them. He looked around and saw the frightened faces through the fence and asked a policeman: 'Is there any chance that you can open the gate here?” But Grobbelaar had to concentrate on the game as Forest shot went towards the corner flag. Grobbelaar takes up the story:

“I went to retrieve it, and I said to the policewoman - I thought it was a policeman - 'Get the effing gate open. Can't you see that they need it'? And there were screams coming at the time. I kicked the ball upfield, and I went back and said, 'Get the fucking gate open'. I turned back and the ball went out of play on the left, and that's when I shouted to the referee. The policeman came on to the field, and the game stopped."

The Hillsborough disaster would ultimately revolutionise the game in England. Barely two days later, the Thatcher government set up an inquiry under Lord Justice Taylor with a remit to “"to inquire into the events at [Hillsborough] and to make recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sports events". Taylor heard evidence from families of the bereaved, supporters, the football association, Sheffield council, Sheffield Wednesday staff and their insurers, police, fire and ambulance authorities, and a consultant engineer.

After 31 days, the Taylor Report recommended all top division stadiums in England and Scotland phase out their perimeter fencing and concrete terraces, and become all-seater. By the 1996 European Championships in England, the game and its grounds had changed utterly. 96 people had paid the ultimate price to make the game safer for all of Britain’s millions of football fans. Their sacrifice, while preventable, was not in vain.

Amazon: a catalogue of fails and glitches

Amazon has publicly apologised overnight for blacklisting gay and lesbian books. Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener said it was an error and called it "embarrassing and ham-fisted.” Amazon claims they have now fixed the problem. The story began a few days ago when Amazon removed sales ranks for a number of its offerings, many of which were gay and feminist-related. Without a rank, books will not show up on Amazon's bestseller lists or recommendation engines. So you won’t see the words "If you like this book, you might also like this book based on what others have bought".

Over Easter thousands of books lost their sales rank. This is the number that Amazon uses to show how well one title sells compared with another. According to The Guardian, the change occurred as the company sought to make its bestseller lists more family friendly. It says the change of rules affected not only high profile writers such as Annie Proulx, EM Forster and Jeanette Winterson, but also thousands of other gay and lesbian titles regardless of their sexual content.

One of the authors affected was Mark R Probst. When he inquired about why his gay teen novel The Filly was stripped of its ranking, he was told by Amazon “In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.” But Probst noted the hypocrisy of the move saying a multitude of “adult” literature was continuing to get a ranking including such authors as Harold Robbins, Jackie Collins. “[Amazon] are using categories THEY set up (gay and lesbian) to now target these books as somehow offensive,” claimed Probst.

The LA Times blog Jacket Copy contacted Amazon Director of Corporate Communications Patty Smith for an explanation. Smith told the blog there was a glitch with the sales rank feature which was “in the process of being fixed.” Jacket Copy then asked whether Smith had a comment on why gay and lesbian authors were unduly affected by the “glitch’. But Smith had nothing to say. “Unfortunately, I'm not able to comment further,” she said. “We're working to resolve the issue, but I don't have any further information.”

Smith’s unconvincing defence of the “glitch” did not wash and it didn’t take long for a backlash to occur. Before the weekend was out Amazon had a PR disaster on its hands. People using the #amazonfail hashtag inundated Twitter with calls for Amazon boycotts. Many users say they have cancelled existing orders, and others are threatening to close their Amazon accounts. As The Inquisitr writes, Amazon could lose millions. “Even if Amazon spins their heart out now, the damage has already been done, and there will be no stopping lost orders; the only possibility is to mitigate the flood,” it says.

Even though the release of subsequent information backs up the ‘glitch’ thesis, it remains a PR disaster for Amazon. It will be interesting to see it will have the serious financial impact predicted by The Inquisitr. Up to this weekend, Amazon had continued to defy the economic downturn. Their Kindle 2 product is starting to take off after it was released to fanfare in February. Version 2 is a significant change from the original and supports text to speech threatening the lucrative audio book industry. It didn’t hurt when Oprah Winfrey announced that the new Kindle e-book reader was her "favourite new gadget" and said it was not only "life-changing" but also "the wave of the future."

This would have been music to the ears of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The 45 year old Bezos continues to be the CEO and the leading shareholder with 24 percent of the stock. Bezos took Amazon public in 1997 and it was one of the few companies to survive the dot com crash. Books continue to drive the virtual mall's $14.8 billion sales and Bezos was worth $8.2 billion last year. He was Time’s person of the year in 1999 and he was still on their top 100 list in 2008. Bezos claims his mantra is: “Try to give your customers the biggest selection at the best prices, delivered cheaply and easily.” After this weekend, he will find out whether best prices are the only thing that drives customer behaviour.

Mark Scott, the ABC and the future of Australian media

On Good Friday, Melbourne documentary maker John Safran went to the Philippines and emulated the feat of a more famous Jew when he had himself nailed to a cross. As well as making headlines, the stunt will also make good television for the ABC in a new series, John Safran's Race Relations to be aired later this year. It brought predictable howls of protest from vested interests in the crucifixion business. Catholic priest Gary Rawson hopes Safran did the stunt for the “right reasons” though did not specify what those reasons might be (dying for our sins? rebellion against the Romans?).

It is unlikely ABC Managing Director Mark Scott cared about those reasons (unless they were TV ratings) or indeed had Safran in mind when he gave a remarkable Annual Media Studies Lecture at La Trobe University in Melbourne on Wednesday. But perhaps Safran was reacting to one of his boss’s opening remarks: “Each month brings a new twist on this revolutionary road”. Scott’s lecture may not have been aimed at the extreme tendencies of his employees, but it was a wide-ranging and insightful look at how the “digital revolution” in the Australian media industry is playing out.

The Melbourne Age saw its own crucifixion in the speech. They said Scott’s speech painted “a bleak picture” as it predicted the death of newspapers in Melbourne and Sydney (with the Fairfax mastheads likely to lose out). And Scott should know, he worked for The Age for ten years before taking over the ABC in 2006.

But Scott’s speech was no more about The Age than it was about Safran. Scott saw three factors affecting commercial media in Australia. These were the parlous state of the global economy, the shattering structure underpinning the business model, and business blunders. The faltering economy has badly affected the media’s lifeblood: classified advertising. Normally in a recession media companies cut costs and ride out the tough times. When the good times returned, said Scott, “the staff came back, the travel plans were dusted off and the long lunch returned.” But he does not think this will happen after the current crisis ends. And that is because of the second problem: business structure.

In the past the commercial broadcasters were “remarkably lucrative oligopolies” with exclusive access to large audiences. Scott says the old style owners such as Murdoch and Packer could afford to sacrifice some profit in return for influence. Packer subsidised the Sunday program while Murdoch ran the loss-making London Times and The Australian. The trade-off was the political and cultural influence they brought to the owners. But now the moguls have lost exclusive access to the audience and fragmentation is rapidly eroding profits. “And that profit,” said Scott, “kept cover prices low, funded international and investigative journalists, cranky columnists, eccentric cartoonists…all the things that made papers great.”

The changing paradigm has led to the third of Scott’s market failures: business blunders. Private equity companies began buying up media entities when prices were still high. Fairfax has been loaded up with debt after its purchase of Rural Press. Poor media acquisition decisions have occurred overseas too. Billionaire Sam Zell purchase of The Tribune group saddled it with massive debt leading to savage cost‐cutting at iconic papers such as The LA Times.

But despite the “triple whammy” of the cyclical crunch, shattering structure and business blunders, Scott saw several grounds for optimism. He said there never has been more active debate around the future of media, the path ahead for journalism, and the search for sustainable business models. He noted initiatives such as Jay Rosen’s “Flying Seminar in the Future of News” and the ABC’s own recent Future of Quality Journalism seminar as examples as “active concern and engagement” in media issues.

Scott also says there is plenty of “bold and creative thinking” but it is happening beyond the mainstream where they are too busy “putting out fires”. But Scott was reluctant to predict too much. Newspapers face further rationalisation, he said. The fate of News Ltd may depend on the plans of Lachlan Murdoch. The proposed National Broadband Network will impact media delivery (media writer Mark Day agrees, calling it a “television killer” today) but says that Telstra will remain a major player. “It pays to watch the organisation that is set to dominate IPTV, owns half of subscription TV, and has the cash to buy a free to air channel at the drop of a hat,” he said.

Scott then spoke about his own organisation, the ABC. He described an organisation in rude health with iView, high ratings, digital channels, user-generated content and leading the way in podcasting. He pitched for further government money ahead of the ABC review and Triennial funding round later this year. “Everyone I meet in government speaks with optimism and enthusiasm about the ongoing importance of the ABC and stresses this in light of all that is happening to others in the media landscape,” he said. “I hope the dollars follow the noble sentiments.”

Scott concluded by praising the way Web 2.0 has transformed the media experience. Audience expertise is now being “injected” into the news process via Youtube and Twitter. The technological revolution means that users can exercise media choices anytime they like or on any device they want. Scott says that things may be lost as media organisations adapt to the revolution, but the effect will be “profound and transforming and empowering”. Scott ended his speech by calling the journey “a remarkable ride to an extraordinary place”.

Something rotten in the state of Fiji

Political matters are moving with bewildering speed in Fiji, something that was not apparent to me as recently as last weekend. I was there for a wedding and I saw no signs of impending political crisis on the streets of Nadi and Lautoka. Nor were there any hints in the paper, both the Fiji Times and the Sun led with the story of a fight over chiefly titles in one of the smaller islands. The only front page Fijian political story I brought back, actually originated in Australia and was about the military appointment of judges. However there was no sign of a judgement in the Qarase case, named for the last elected PM who was deposed in 2006.

Then in a matter of days, the country went haywire. On Thursday, judges ruled in favour of Qarase thus ruling “Interim Prime Minister” Bainimarama’s three year regime illegal. Yesterday the Commodore resigned and today the President went on radio where he sacked the judges and annulled the constitution. Barely pausing for breath, Bainimarama now claims he’s not behind it and the Fiji Human Rights Commission has accepted the President’s decision in a press release. “President Ratu Josefa Iloilo had no option but to annul the Constitution and appoint himself Head of State,” said the Commission.

The FHRC’s website is down at the time of writing, so I cannot confirm if the release was indeed as edited in the Fiji Times but it is safe to assume it was close enough. “The Commission understands that His Excellency felt that the Court of Appeal decision in the Qarase case left him... with no option but to abrogate the Constitution" said Commission head Dr Shaista Shameem.

The opposition movement Citizens Constitutional Forum also quoted Shameem on Thursday saying the President would “be aware of the need not to leave a political vacuum in Fiji and the Appeals court has only indicated to the President what it would be advisable to do so.” Assuming the “so” at the end of that quote adds no value, what I think Shameem meant is they advised the President to follow the CCF advice to call on him to appoint “distinguish[ed] people as caretaker Prime minister and ministers who are independent of this litigation and who can take the country to elections.”

These quick events are unlikely to lead to quick elections. Though the speedy chain of events has now been accepted in Suva, they have not been accepted elsewhere. The Fiji Islands have once again incurred the wrath of neighbouring giants. In Canberra, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s office called it an “abrogation” of the constitution while the Islands' other big brother New Zealand also condemned the sacking. According to the Australian Government, the Court of Appeal ruled the 2006 coup was invalid and that Bainimarama’s interim Government was illegal. Australia said Commodore Bainimarama was behind it all and said “elections should be held promptly.”

It would be difficult to describe 2014 as prompt but that is the timetable outlined by President Iloilo. It remains hazardous to predict what will happen next. Navy commodore Bainimarama still has the control of the armed forces. The Commissioner of Police Commodore Esala Teleni is also considered a staunch ally of Bainimarama.

The unknown is how much power does President Ratu Josefa Iloilo hold? At 88, he is the world’s oldest head of state. He was the paramount chief of the Vuda district of Ba in Fiji's northwest coast and he has been in the job of president for almost ten years. He has been elected twice (2000, 2005) to the position by the Great Council of Chiefs. When Frank Bainimarama seized power in December 2006 the commodore also briefly assumed presidential powers but gave them back to Iloilo a month later when he (Iloilo) agreed to give legal immunity to coup plotters. It is likely we are now seeing the fruit of their Faustian pact.

Human rights groups don’t distinguish between Iloilo and Bainimarama. When HRW issued their concerns about the slow return to democracy, they sent a letter to both of them. “We urge you [both] to ensure the swift transition to an elected government, and call on you and your officials to immediately and publicly make an unambiguous commitment that fundamental human rights will be respected and those who exercise them will be protected,” wrote HRW in 2007. Despite the recent rush of blood to the head, HRW’s complaint is still valid today and still unanswered.

UPDATE Saturday 11/4/09. Looks like Bainimarama is pulling the strings. This morning Iloilo re-appointed him "Interim" Prime Minister.

CanWest, bankruptcy and Channel Ten

The CanWest Global Communications Corp has extended a bank deadline to renegotiate a $243 million (all amounts in this article are USD) credit facility. On Tuesday its subsidiary company CanWest Media Inc (CMI) reached a deal with its main lenders to extend the waiver of certain borrowing conditions for two weeks to 21 April. The revised terms means that CanWest will get additional credit in the interim fortnight. Discussions will continue with lenders to look at terms to extend the waiver for a longer period to allow CMI to pursue a recapitalisation transaction. But a lot of hard wheeling and dealing lies ahead for the Canadian media giant to avoid bankruptcy in the coming months.

Lenders and hedge funds have been remarkably flexible so far over several missed deadlines to make various repayments on their massive $4 billion debt. However CanWest faces another crucial deadline next week on a $30m interest payment to hedge funds on risk sensitive 8 per cent senior subordinated notes it failed to re-pay last month. If CanWest does not meet this deadline next week, they could possibly be in default on $761 million worth of notes plus missed interest and associated default interest. This would leave the company in the precarious situation of trying to offload assets in a time when media stocks are virtually worthless.

As Boyd Erman points out, CanWest has two serious problems when it comes to selling assets to potential buyers. The likely prices are dwarfed by the debts tied to the assets, and the company’s convoluted corporate structure makes it almost impossible to make sales work. Erman says broadcasting assets would need to be sold for five times ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation) to meet the debt of those assets and such a deal would be extremely unlikely in the current market. “CanWest is almost like a landlord with a rental house that's fallen so much in value that selling it wouldn't cover what's left on the mortgage,” he says.

If CanWest does go under, it will provide a tasty meal for asset strippers. The Canadian company owns the Global Television Network, the cable network E!, the Southam newspaper paper chain, and is the majority shareholder of Australia’s Channel Ten. CanWest is controlled by the Asper family (CEO Leonard and his brother David) based in Winnipeg. Much of their debt was accumulated in buying the Southam chain in 2000 from Conrad Black's former company Hollinger International.

Here in Australia CanWest owns 56.6 per cent of Channel Ten and owns stations in the five mainland state capitals. The uncertainty over Ten’s parent company has affected the local share price and the bottom line. Last week, Ten posted a first half net loss of $57 million and cancelled its fiscal 2009 final dividend. Television revenue was down 12 per cent and the share of its key 16-39 demographic fell 5.5 per cent this year. This Easter local staff have been instructed to take extra leave and asked to restructure their hours to a permanent shorter working week.

Meanwhile CanWest have informally put the feelers out to sell its stake in the Channel. They hope to raise $280 million from the sale if they can sell out at 75c (Australian) which was the floor price in an unsuccessful capital raising project in February, and which co-incidentally was the closing share price going into Easter. CanWest have sounded out possible buyers who already have a stake in Ten including the Commonwealth Bank (6.5 percent) and fund management company 452 Capital (5.7 percent).

The wildcard in any bidding may be Ten’s second biggest shareholder Birketu. Owned by little known Bermuda-based Bruce Gordon (described by Margaret Simons as "Australia's forgotten TV mogul"), Birketu control 13.3 per cent of the network. The 79 year old Gordon already has extensive interests in Australian television. He owns Nine Network stations in Adelaide and Perth and the WIN regional network and is free to extend his interest in Ten in the wake of the 2006 loosening of Australian media ownership. While officially CanWest are saying they are not talking to Birketu, Gordon has long expressed an interest in increasing his stake. If CanWest’s creditors lose their patience in the next few weeks, expect Gordon to make his move and become Australia’s most powerful unknown television mogul in the process.

The demise of El Chino: Peruvian court jails Fujimori for 25 years

A special court in Lima has sentenced former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori to 25 years imprisonment for human rights. A three-judge panel found him guilty yesterday of ordering death squads to carry out two separate massacres of civilians during the early 1990s. Fujimori is the first ever democratically elected president to be found guilty in his own country of rights abuses. He was convicted of the killings of 25 people in two separate massacres, in 1991 and 1992, and also for the kidnappings of journalist Gustavo Gorriti and businessman Samuel Dyer in 1992. The massacres were carried out by the Grupo Colina unit, a squad of military intelligence officers under the then-president’s orders. He is already serving a six year sentence for abuse of power and the 70 year old could now spend the rest of his life in prison.

Alberto Fujimori ruled Peru for the decade between 1990 and 2000. Despite being the son of Japanese immigrants, the Peruvian media nicknamed him “El Chino” (the Chinaman). After a career as an academic specialising in engineering and mathematics, he was the surprise winner of the presidential election in 1990. He defeated the favourite, renowned novelist Mario Vargas Llosa by successfully portraying the writer as the candidate of the Peruvian elite. At the time Peru suffered from severe hyperinflation and political violence. Fujimori succeeded in fixing both problems but at a major cost of abandoning human rights. He temporarily assumed dictatorial powers in 1992 closing the opposition-controlled Congress and courts. Critically however, most Peruvians approved his actions.

Around this time, he also led the government through a bloody internal war with the Maoist rebel group, the Shining Path. In 1995 he won a second term of office defeating another high profile candidate former United Nations secretary-general Javier Perez de Cuellar. According to Time, Fujimori's success was based on an image of the populist caudillo “just as the continent was ridding itself of the legacy of dictators who had turned ‘disappear’ into a verb when dealing with their political opponents.” The war with the Shining Path led to the deaths of 70,000 people and Peru's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has estimated that 37 per cent of those were killed by armed forces.

Nevertheless Fujimori remained popular and won a third term in 2000. This time there were strong suspicions of election irregularities. The new government did not last long and was overthrown in the wake of a corruption scandal involving the head of Peru’s intelligence service, Vladimiro Montesinos. In 2000, secret videos showed Montesinos bribing opposition congressman Alberto Kouri to join Fujimori’s party. Montesinos was forced to flee the country and his boss Fujimori followed him shortly after. The disgraced president fled to his ancestral home of Japan, where faxed in his resignation.

In 2005, Fujimori took a gamble on resurrecting his political career. He flew to Chile where he was promptly arrested. After a two year court battle, he was extradited back to Peru to face human rights and corruption charges. In December that year he was is sentenced to six years for ordering the illegal search of the apartment of Montesinos's wife in 2000. The separate human rights trial continued all through 2008. The prosecution successfully linked him with the Grupo Colina, a top-secret army death squad whose mission was to suppress any activity the regime thought subversive. Grupo members testified that they were following Fujimori’s orders in the two massacres.

Human Rights Watch called yesterday’s eventual conviction a “major advance for human rights accountability” in Latin America. HRW said Peru's national court system demonstrated “the will, capacity, and independence” to try its former president. Maria McFarland, senior Americas researcher at the New York-based rights body said the ruling showed that “even former heads of state cannot expect to get away with serious crimes.”

Fujimori’s daughter Keiko continues to maintain her father’s innocence saying she was “a direct witness to his work and his accomplishments”. She told Al Jazeera there was no proof of any dirty war and the government’s strategy was to get the support of the people whom they provided basic infrastructure to improve quality of life. “We created this group called ‘ronderos’ or ‘comites autodefence’”, she said. “We provided the poor people with small guns to protect themselves from terrorism.”

However, other Peruvians were less forgiving of the president and preferred to praise the justice system. Political activist Monica Miranda told the BBC that Fujimori had committed many crimes and violated human rights and she was proud that Peru tried him while he was still alive. She also said Fujimori violated the constitution, and committed crimes of corruption and embezzlement. “I understand he did positive things for many Peruvians who had been abandoned by all the previous governments, but that doesn't absolve him of his crimes now and it never will,” she said.

AP threatens web users who quote their articles

The world’s biggest newswire agency Associated Press said yesterday it would sue websites that use its members' articles without permission. Speaking at the company’s annual meeting in San Diego, California AP chairman Dean Singleton threatened to "pursue legal and legislative actions" against websites that do not properly license news content. He said AP would develop a system to track its online content (as well as the content of its 6,700 fee paying member newspapers) to determine whether it is being legally used. "We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," said Singleton. In a complementary press release Singleton riffed off Peter Finch’s character Howard Beale in Network “We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more.”

In an interview with Paidcontent.org’s Staci Kramer, Singleton expanded on AP’s proposed new rules of engagement. He said the media industry had been “timid” about protecting content, in the good times and “didn’t recognise that misappropriation is as serious an issue as it is”. In these tougher times, Singleton said they must protect the rights of their content “We own the content but we’ve let those who spend very little, if any, get the most advantage from it,” he said.

Kramer said AP already had an aggressive reputation with lawsuits on aggregating content and intellectual-property protection “so the idea of suing isn’t new.” But despite Singleton’s threats, it is not yet clear who his targets might be. Google signed a deal three years ago with AP or the use of its stories and photographs. Google claimed it was for a product that complemented Google News not Google News itself (though to my knowledge no such product yet exists in the public domain). However this deal expires at the end of 2009 and AP may be putting in an ambit claim for future negotiations. But as TechDirt points out, Google News drives traffic to news providers' sites, where they're free to monetise that traffic however they see fit.

In any case, it will prove difficult under US fair trade laws to persuade news aggregation websites that they should pay for content they are currently getting for free. It is this “fair use” application that Singleton calls a “misguided legal theory”. AP already has form in this area. Last year, they announced what they called a “quotation licence” for bloggers and journalists for use of AP articles. The fees start at $12.50 for quotations of 5-25 words and rise to $100 for over 251 words. Boing Boing called it an attempt “to replace the established legal and social order with a system of private law”.

But given how impractical these conditions, perhaps what AP may really be after is a guarantee that their originating story appears first in a Google search about the content. AP’s director of strategic content, Jim Kennedy, gave an example of the problem to Forbes. "When the Red River in Fargo rises, we want to people to go to the Fargo Forum. But searching for the Red River on Google might also send you to the London Telegraph."

But Kennedy also acknowledged that AP should accept some responsibility for directing traffic to its member sites. He said they are developing software that improves tags and, also crucially, tracks content. This latter functionality will assist AP find out who is using their content that shouldn’t be. The main culprits are the search engines and blog sites who use (and link to) AP content on a regular basis. But as MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka says, stopping this traffic won’t do anything to solve the underlying problems affecting AP’s business. Kafka notes three basic issues 1) too much undifferentiated information 2) the disappearance of classified and local retail advertising and 3) debt-ridden investors who have paid too much for media assets in the last decade.

Roy Greenslade says Google and bloggers are not going to go away. He believes the news agencies need to find an accommodation with them “to ensure journalism survives”. Peter Kafka also points out the dangers of quoting Howard Beale: “You are aware [he] gets shot to death at the end of the movie, right?”

Australian Press Council throws out Fiji judge’s "main burden"

Today’s edition of the Fiji Times had an article about a recent Australian Press Council (APC) judgement of interest to the troubled islands. In truth, it wasn’t great journalism from the Times and deservedly had no by-line as it was almost a direct word-for-word steal from the council judgement itself. And the one addition by the Times sub-editor was mostly incorrect. The headline read “Judge’s gripe upheld”, however according to the APC, the gripe was dismissed “in the main burden”. Nonetheless the case is an interesting one, and one that says a lot about the murky world of the Fijian political and judicial system.

The case was brought by the Australian-born Justice Jocelynne Scutt, who is currently a judge of the High Court of Fiji. The WA-educated Scutt is a distinguished human rights lawyer and former Anti-Discrimination Commissioner for Tasmania. She raised the complaint with the APC about an article in The Australian published on 10 March 2008. This article by Nicola Bercovic was entitled “Judge criticised over Fiji posting”.

Bercovic’s story related how Scutt was appointed to serve on Fiji’s High Court in November 2007 hearing primarily on family law matters. Scott was offered the job after six expatriate judges from the Court of Appeal resigned the year before over concerns about the acting chief judge appointed by the supposedly “Interim” Bainimarama government. The article quoted Fiji Women's Rights Movement spokeswoman Tara Chetty who said they could not support any judicial appointments by the interim government. The article quoted two other prominent Australian lawyers who also questioned Scutt’s decision to take the role.

A few days later (APC says 15 March, but I can only find an article on 13 March), The Australian followed up with a second article from Chris Merritt entitled “Jocelynne Scutt named in human rights report”. This article gave some of Scutt’s background and then implicated her in “a major report on the rule of law in Fiji prepared by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute.” Merritt claimed that Scutt was involved in proceedings that were "a chilling use of judicial powers" against free expression. Scutt was unavailable to comment.

However my reading of the IBAHRI report (available here in pdf format) does not fully support Merritt’s insinuation that Scutt was responsible. In the matter cited, Scutt was one of three judges who had judicial concerns about a Fiji Sun article criticising the Interim government’s choice of judges. It was Justice Shameen who had four issues with the article but they did not find against the paper. Scutt did not comment and nothing further came of the case (though I agree it does have “a chilling effect”).

Merritt’s article and the IBAHRI report both quote Angie Heffernan, the director of Fiji's Pacific Centre for Public Integrity. Heffernan had called on Scutt to resign after she (Scutt) commended the Fiji Human Rights report which cast doubt on the credibility of the 2006 Election (and provided Bainimarama the excuse he needed to launch the coup). Heffernan said the report contents were now sub judice and Scutt compromised her position “reflect[ing] the disturbing developments within the judiciary since the December 5, 2006 military coup.”

Justice Scutt complained to the APC that The Australian articles were 'highly critical', 'highly defamatory' and 'damaging'. She sought a retraction of the published materials and the publication by the newspaper of an apology. She claimed her appointment was not political as it was made by the President of Fiji on the recommendation of a Judicial Services Commission and not by 'the military-backed regime'. However The Australian dismissed this complaint as “disingenuous” and the APC agreed.

They also agreed with the paper that Scutt’s high profile made her a genuine subject of public interest. Her acceptance of a judicial appointment in a country under the control of a military regime was a newsworthy story, it stated. It was also unimpressed by her claim that the fact the matter of judicial appointment in Fiji was currently sub judice meant the articles should not be published at all. The APC dismissed this by saying “[t]his provides no effective or convincing justification for her complaint.”

The APC was critical of The Australian’s initial inability to obtain a quote from Scutt prior to the publication of the first article. But even then they noted she declined to comment when finally contacted. "This refusal by Justice Scutt to provide comments based on her belief that, as a judge she was 'not able to speak on the matter'," wrote the APC, “did not preclude the newspaper from continuing to report, and comment on, her appointment.”

The only complaint upheld (and with it the dubious rationale for the Fiji Times headline) was that The Australian went too far linking Scutt with the military regime. These were the statements about "links with Fiji's military rulers" and "is involved with the military regime", which incorrectly implied collaboration with the regime. The APC said the newspaper offered no evidence to justify these statements. Nonetheless Scutt can take little comfort from the judgement. The current political situation in Fiji is too damaged for a truly independent judiciary to function properly. I agree with Greg Barns in another article in The Australian from August last year that Scutt should resign. “If she does that, she will be helping to restore democracy to Fiji and will enhance her standing in the eyes of her peers and the Australian community,” wrote Barns.

weddings and anniversaries

Just a quick note to say there will be no posting at Woolly Days until Tuesday as I am off today for a whistle-stop visit to Fiji for friends' wedding.

By pure co-incidence, this is the 1000th post on Woolly Days. The site began in October 2005 as an experiment in uncoordinated ramblings (and extraordinarily bad poetry) but after a few months it settled down into articles about issues, places and people that I was interested in. As such, it has become a vitally important daily outlet for me for several reasons: to learn about things, to vent about them, and to share what I found out.

Almost a million words later, I hope Woolly Days is now approaching something like journalism that people might be interested in reading. I am also eternally grateful for all the people across the world I have met (both in real life and virtually) through my writing.

Thanks to all my readers for dropping by and here's to the next thousand posts.

Derek Barry

Najib replaces Badawi as Malaysian Prime Minister

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi officially stepped down today leaving the way open for his deputy Najib Razak to be appointed in his place tomorrow. The unpopular Badawi formally resigned this morning after five and half years in the top job. In preparation for the transfer of power, last week Najib Razak was confirmed as the unopposed leader of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) - the dominant party in the ruling Barisan National (BN) coalition. He will be now be sworn in as Malaysia’s sixth Prime Minister at 10am local time Friday.

Speaking today, Najib called on all Malaysians to support him in his new role. He said he wants to expand on the "One Malaysia" concept, which calls for mutual trust and respect. He said these were important elements for national unity. “We must start by having respect for each other and once this has been developed consciously, we will be more open in trusting one another,” he said. "Of course, this will not happen overnight but it has to be consciously developed."

Najib Razak is the 55-year-old British-educated son of Malaysia's second prime minister Abdul Razak. He is a highly experienced campaigner with 32 years in parliament behind him. Aged 29, he was appointed chief minister of his home state of Pahang and has served as a federal government minister since 1987 in a variety of positions including finance, defence and deputy PM. Najib has fought off a host of corruption charges. The most serious allegation links him to the 2006 murder of a 28 year old Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu who was the mistress of Najib’s foreign policy adviser.

The murder allegation refuses to go away and as recently as last weekend 10,000 opposition supporters protested and sung songs linking Najib to Altantuya’s death. And he takes power at a difficult time for his party and his country. Voters are disillusioned with UMNO while Malaysia is not immune from the global financial crisis. Southeast Asia's third largest economy has been hit by a slump in exports and manufacturing, and at least 26,000 people have lost their jobs so far this year. In his role as finance minister, Najib unveiled a $16.4 billion stimulus package last month, but conceded Malaysia’s economy could still shrink by a further one percent this year. Najib wants steer the economy away from its manufacturing dependence towards services in a "new economic model". He says his medium-term goal is to raise the share of the services sector from 54 to 70 percent of GDP and establish a knowledge-based economy.

The BN coalition has ruled Malaysia since independence from Britain in 1957 but had its worst ever election result last year losing a third of the parliament to an opposition coalition led by former deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim. For the second time in ten years, the government is trying to stop Anwar’s rise by charging him with sodomy and he stands trial in July.

Meanwhile, the government is using draconian laws to prosecute other opposition figures. Last week it suspended an MP for one year when Opposition member Lim Kit Siang openly called Najib a murderer. They also banned two leading opposition newspapers for three months and police broke up an opposition rally in Kedah, one of three states that will hold by-elections next week. And the state legislature in Perak has been paralysed for six weeks by a dispute over who should govern with Najib also implicated in the impasse having plotted the downfall of the opposition government.

One Malaysian expert says Najib won’t have time for a honeymoon period in the top job. Professor Clive Kessler from the University of New South Wales told the ABC earlier this week that his UNMO has reputation for being high handed, arrogant, and revengeful whenever it gets into trouble and Najib embodies that problem for many people. Kessler says Najib and his likely deputy Muhyiddin Yassin have the economic experience literacy and credibility to deal with the financial crisis but lack authority, credibility and legitimacy to carry their agenda through. “Any political setback will only go to further diminish [that] confidence,” he said.

Uzbekistan’s Australian goal

Australia’s 2-0 defeat of Uzbekistan in tonight’s World Cup qualifier was not the only meeting between the countries in the last 24 hours. While the footballers did battle in Sydney, consular officials met in Canberra to further diplomatic contacts. The meeting at deputy Foreign Minister level exchanged views on the situation and prospects of bilateral cooperation in the political, commercial and economic, cultural and humanitarian spheres. Items of mutual interest included the situation in Uzbek neighbour Afghanistan, the prospects of co-operation with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in combating terrorism, and also co-operation within the UN and other international organisations.

The move is consistent with a slow warming of ties between Uzbekistan and the west. There remains a long way to go in the Central Asian country where democracy has been a dirty word for the last two decades. In all that time, it has been ruled by the same autocratic ruler: Islam Karimov. The 70 year old Karimov has crushed all opposition since taking power in 1989 when it was still a Soviet state. He cemented power when Uzbekistan gained independence in 1991 and has since won a succession of fake elections.

There is little hope of change. Last month EIU Views Wire said Karimov is likely to retain his tight grip on power “with few prospects for democratisation or transparency”. The economy is also suffering badly as import demand declines in Russia, its main export market. Despite his age, Karimov is showing no signs of slowing up and continues to brutally suppress all opposition to his reign.

Karimov cracked down on the main opposition party the Sunshine Uzbekistan Coalition. Party leader Sanjar Umarov campaigned for free trade and private ownership of the agricultural industry but he was arrested in 2005 on trumped up charges of embezzlement and money laundering. In 2006 he was sentenced to prison for eight years and was conveniently out of the way for the country’s most recent election in 2007 which Karimov “won” with 88 percent of the vote.

Uzbekistan’s media is also tightly controlled. Internet sites critical of his regime get an error message and journalists who stray from the official line are jailed or killed. Press censorship was increased after events in 2005 at the eastern border town of Andijan when 800 people were killed. The massacre occurred after a mass protest against a sham trial of 23 local businesspeople accused of Islamic extremism. On the first day protesters stormed the jail but when they massed in the central square on the second day, soldiers shot indiscriminately into the crowd.

The killings prompted widespread international criticism. Karimov was so stung by the wave of complaints, he expelled many foreign companies, aid groups and media in retaliation. The EU imposed sanctions but relaxed them in October 2008. This was not because of any improvement in human rights but rather that Europe wants Uzbekistan’s industrial output. The country is the world’s second largest exporter of cotton and the world’s seventh largest exporter of gold. But the profits of these industries are kept by the ruling elites. Conditions in the state-run cotton farms amount to virtual slavery, according to the International Crisis Group.

None of this is a concern to Karimov who continues to strut the geo-political stage. He briefly aligned his nation with the US and provided an air base to help operations in Afghanistan in 2001. But in the wake of the Andijan criticism, Karimov turned to China and Russia for support and purged the defence ministry of pro-US supporters. More recently however, there have been signs of another thaw http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/4820 in relations with the US with America being allowed to use the airbase in the southern city of Termez. While Australian and Uzbekistan do not have much in common, yesterday’s meeting is significant in sense it offers another small crack in Uzbekistan’s icy relationship with the west. But it will not totally melt until Karimov dies or is somehow ousted from power.

Arab League Summit ends in Gaddafy chaos

The troubled Arab League Summit has ended in disarray after Libyan leader Muamar Gaddafy launched a blistering attack on the Saudi King Abdullah over his links to the US and Britain. Although his mike was eventually switched off by Qatari television, Libyan state television reported that Gaddafy was incensed Abdullah had not visited him in six years. After making his impassioned speech, Gaddafy then got up and walked out of the summit hall while Arab League head Amr Moussa was speaking.

The speech displayed an extraordinary sensitivity to Gaddafy’s role in history. Libyan official JANA news agency was there to publish the full text of his words "I am the leader of the Arab leaders, the dean of Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam of the Muslims," proclaimed Gaddafy to Abdullah. "I am ready to visit you and for you to visit me..I tell my brother Abdullah, that you have avoided me for six years and you are afraid to confront me.” But Gaddafy didn’t stop there and criticised Abdullah over his links to the West. "You are a product of Great Britain and protected by the United States," he said. "Out of respect for the (Arab) nation, I consider the personal problem between us over and I am ready to visit you and to welcome you to Libya."

Gaddafy then stormed out of the meeting with aides saying he was off to visit a museum. Host Qatar held a reconciliatory summit between the Libyan leader and King Abdullah. Gaddafy’s personal envoy said the meeting was “friendly and frank” and said there were no differences between Libya and Saudi Arabia. “There was misunderstanding and it’s over now,” claimed the envoy.

These weren’t the only differences at the conference. Major regional power Egypt did not attend because of the League’s perceived drift towards outright anti-American attitudes. However President Mubarak did send a message to the Summit that claimed Egypt was keen to achieve a genuine Arab reconciliation. The message claimed Egypt was keen to achieve the Palestinian unity and to rebuild Gaza. In a possibly very dodgy cooking metaphor, Mubarak claimed Egypt was also interested in “marinating” Sudan's unity and territorial integrity. He said Egypt supports the Sudan in its crisis with the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir.

Beside’s Gaddafy’s strop, this year’s hot issue is the appearance of Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir who has an arrest warrant out for him from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bashir was treated with respect by Qatar which is not a signatory to the ICC (but is in good company; neither are the US, Russia, China and India). The final communiqué of the meeting rejected the warrant and wanted continuation of talks between the Sudanese government and anti-government groups on Darfur under the mediation of Qatar. "We emphasis our solidarity with Sudan and our dismissal and rejection of the decision handed down by the International Criminal Court,” read the communiqué. “The decision to arrest Bashir was aimed at undermining the unity and stability of Sudan".

The league’s solidarity behind Sudan is testament to its bonds. This is the 21st summit since the Arab League was founded in 1945 and after a slow start has been an annual event since 2000. Egypt’s absence at this year’s summit is particularly poignant as it was their suggestion to decide to form the League and adopt its Charter. There are 22 member states and the Summit is the League's highest organ of power, as well as being the Arab world's top-level forum devoted to the discussion of major regional issues. Where better for a grandstanding Gaddafy to strut his stuff.

Anti-Bikie laws and moral panic

State and territory governments across Australia are rushing new and dangerous laws onto the statute books to combat what has been deemed the latest public enemy: motorbike gangs. Australian media have been keen to play up the perceived problem with “spates of shocking violence” while governments across the nation rub their hands in glee with the opportunity to enact “tough anti-bikie laws”. However, there are justifiable concerns that these draconian new laws are open to abuse and are effectively the equivalent of anti-terrorism laws for domestic uses.

South Australia was the first state to introduce anti-bikie laws nine months ago based on similar Canadian laws. There gang membership can attract a prison sentence of five years. Announcing the laws in 2007, Premier Mike Rann said at the time they were designed to disrupt criminal activity, dismantle organised crime networks and discourage others from trying to set up in South Australia. Among the law’s powers are: giving courts the power to control with whom gang members can associate with, issuing Public Safety Orders to ban gangs from specified places, prohibiting the possession of hydroponic equipment such as high intensity lights and carbon filters, confiscating “unexplained wealth” and introducing a presumption against bail for gang members charged with serious or violent offences and breaches of control orders. Rann said there were eight known criminal bikie gangs with bases in South Australia with about 250 hardcore members.

The Biker Forum called the SA laws “the toughest anti-bikie laws in the world”. The writer was keen to make a distinction between motorcycle gangs and people who love motorbikes. The Queensland based “grotbag” said there are thousands of Gold Coasters who love to ride motorbikes. “Let's never confuse them with motorcycle gangs, those groups of mainly men whose illicit drug trafficking, standover tactics, extortion, money laundering, weapons trade and public disturbances have earned them a fearsome reputation,” he (or she) wrote. “Annual hospital toy runs on one day of the year don't make up for their criminal behaviour on the other 364 days.”

However Monash University academic and bikie gang expert Dr Arthur Veno said South Australia is undergoing a “moral panic attack” and called for the establishment of an independent commission against corruption. Veno said the SA legislation, implemented as part of the Serious and Organised Crime Act, was draconian and did not have any basis in fact. He said the Rann Government had labelled outlaw motorcycle clubs as public enemy number one despite the facts not supporting the assertion. “Crime attributable to bikie gangs as a proportion of total crime is extremely low - less than one per cent,” he said. “No one is saying that these clubs are criminal free, but the Rann Government and the South Australian Police are basically wasting taxpayers' money to target an element of society which is responsible for a miniscule amount of crime."

The new law has several problems. They provide the Attorney General with wide discretionary powers to deem organisations 'criminal'; they don’t adequately define organised crime; and they provide no appeals process for those organisations branded under the legislation. As well, the guilt by association provisions are a deep concern. Under the act, anyone who associates with “persons of a prescribed class” (a member of an outlawed organisation) can be convicted if they meet six or more times in 12 months. Though there are provisions for family members and employers, they can be overruled and a conviction carries a maximum period of imprisonment of five years.

There are reports that NSW’s proposed new laws are tougher still. Sydney Airport was the scene of the most prominent bikie attack recently when a man was killed at the domestic terminal on 22 March. Under Premier Nathan Rees’ new laws, motorcycle gangs would be outlawed, the type of employment bikies can seek would be restricted and police intelligence networks would be expanded. Once again it is a draconian solution to a noisy but, on the whole, tiny problem. As Arthur Veno says “in NSW, all gang crime accounts for 0.6 per cent of total crime. Now, how much resources do we want to pour down that tube?”

But the public (read: media) clamour “to do something about it” is proving too difficult for politicians to resist. On the weekend, the Northern Territory Police Commissioner called for similar legislation to outlaw bikie gangs. Commissioner Paul White claimed the groups would “stop at nothing." And were involved in murder, intimidation, violence, and stand-over tactics. This seemed to be a lot of activity for a small group. Even White admitted there were “only a dozen Hell's Angels members in the Territory.” Nevertheless he got his wish today. Attorney-general Delia Lawrie announced new laws saying she not want bikie gangs arriving from other states. The laws allow streamlined court orders so gang clubroom fortifications could be dismantled, place and membership restrictions, and a declaration process to outlaw certain gangs.

The Not In My Backyard attitude is now likely to spread to Queensland. As are the meaningless slogans. The State Government doesn’t want the Sunshine State to become a "safe haven" for outlawed motorcycle gangs while the cabinet met today in order to consider its own “crack down”. Newly re-elected Premier Anna Bligh accidentally left the cat out of the bag why the legislation was being fast-tracked. "New South Wales has decided it needs to act quickly, and I don't believe Queensland should be exposed in a context where New South Wales is acting,” she said. While Bligh meant legal exposure, her issue is media exposure and avoiding a reputation of being soft on crime. While governments prefer to deal with perception, the real bikie problem will only be driven underground. Meanwhile, we can fully expect the scope of the laws to be broadened to cover the next panic du jour, whatever that might be.