goddamn hippy terrists

September 11, 2005 10:03 PM

And you reckon the USA PATRIOT Act is bad? An American peace activist, Scott Parkin (who I’ve never heard of before but wrote this article) has been arrested detained in Australia and will soon be repatriated to the USA, with little or no explanation. He's spent three months in Aus giving workshops and hugs and undertaking protest actions (with street theatre!) Apparently he may be a “security risk” or may be an embarrassment to the US government - and we couldn’t have that in a proud and independent country like Australia, could we? Of course, while in detention, he gets charged $130 a day. Still, I guess it's better than 'rendition'.
posted by wilful (15 comments total)

"Don't fight it son, confess quickly. If you hold out too long, you could jeopardize your credit rating." — Brazil
posted by Rothko at 10:15 PM on September 11, 2005

What does this have to do with the Patriot Act? Or any law in Australia comparable to the Patriot Act? Unfortunately when you're a foreigner in a foreign land you give up all your rights as an American and probably have no rights under the country your a guest in.

While I'm 100% rah rah hippie for war protests I can see where a country wouldn't want a foreigner coming and stirring the pot. This is risky behavior and should be taken into consideration if you're worried about your personal well-being while travelin abroad. From a government stand point war is war, no matter how contraversial.

To take a little less ambiguous case, what if an Australian were to come to the US in 1943 to do a "hugs" protest against going to war against the Nazis. A foreigner causing dissent most surely would be looked more closely at, this is the logical thing to do. Unfortunately there exists no mechanism for the government to look at a war as popular or unpopular, it's not there job in matters like this to decide that. That's for the policy-makers, people involved with national security should not have to decide whether it is politically safe to examine foreigners in the name of national security. This doesn't mean that basical rights should be violated, but doing otherwise would give up a nation's right to govern itself.

So I guess in summary, if you take out that this is a shitty war we're in and look at it from a government standpoint, as a foreigner protesting war we're involved with, it doesn't look so crazy.
posted by geoff. at 10:18 PM on September 11, 2005

controversial, what happened to that damn spell-check?
posted by geoff. at 10:19 PM on September 11, 2005

Bush doesn't call Howard his 'sheriff' for nothing.
posted by homunculus at 10:37 PM on September 11, 2005

ho hum
posted by thirteenkiller at 10:39 PM on September 11, 2005

Huh, reading that I thought he was being extradited to the US, but now it seems that he's just being booted out of Australia (and sent back home).

How does AU plan on getting paid if they send him back here?
posted by delmoi at 10:40 PM on September 11, 2005

What does this have to do with the Patriot Act? Or any law in Australia comparable to the Patriot Act? Merely the fact that he's being held without having committed a crime or given any real opportunity to defend himself, on the self-serving grounds of 'antional security". Pretty obvious connection I would have thought.

[Godwin]In 1943 the US was at war with the Nazis. Who is Australia at war with at the moment? Not a relevant analogy[/godwin] This guys protests are against Halliburton and 'the rich'. He should be free to do this as much as he likes while in Australia.
posted by wilful at 10:48 PM on September 11, 2005

What does this have to do with the Patriot Act? Or any law in Australia comparable to the Patriot Act? Merely the fact that he's being held without having committed a crime or given any real opportunity to defend himself, on the self-serving grounds of 'antional security". Pretty obvious connection I would have thought.

[Godwin]In 1943 the US was at war with the Nazis. Who is Australia at war with at the moment? Not a relevant analogy[/godwin] This guys protests are against Halliburton and 'the rich'. He should be free to do this as much as he likes while in Australia.

delmoi, the charges are a simple strategy to refuse to have him back.
posted by wilful at 10:49 PM on September 11, 2005

How does AU plan on getting paid if they send him back here?

They don't. The bill is a deterrent. If he wants to come back, they'll slap it on him.
posted by Wolof at 11:17 PM on September 11, 2005

To take a little less ambiguous case, what if an Australian were to come to the US in 1943 to do a "hugs" protest against going to war against the Nazis. A foreigner causing dissent most surely would be looked more closely at, this is the logical thing to do.

Setting aside the fact that you apparently don't understand why the U.S. entered WWII, I still don't follow your logic, nor do I see how this case is any "less ambiguous." Is it your contention that a person who vocally disagreed with the war should have been imprisoned? Or simply that their right to disagree vocally is dependent on where they happened to have been born? In what way is such behavior "risky?" In a democracy, are people free to think for themselves only during times of peace?
posted by dsword at 1:01 AM on September 12, 2005

New Zealand media is reporting that he may be sent here (to NZ) instead of the USA as he has a valid NZ visa. NZ Immigration is still checking it out, but you never know...
posted by newscouch at 3:10 AM on September 12, 2005

Please pardon the horrible grammar in the previous comment.
posted by newscouch at 3:12 AM on September 12, 2005

I guess it comes down to the issue that if he were an Australian citizen, his behaviour would be tolerated (albiet with some photos taken by ASIO - hi boys! You got my file stowed safely away?). If he were in America, his behaviour would probably be tolerated too, albeit from inside a Free Speech Zone. But if he's an American in Australia, somehow things play out differently.

I remember an American girl in Australia I spoke to a while back. She was involved in a protest ralley in New York - was arrested in a park while trying to get away from the rally because it had turned violent (ie. she was one of the GOOD guys) and was locked in a cell for 24 hours. The arrest was eventually deemed to be wrongful, yet when she applied for a visa to Australia, she had to have a 3-hour conversation with immigration officials trying to explain that it was a wrongful arrest before they let her into the country.

You would think that countries with fairly similar laws regarding civil disobedience would be a little more tolerant of each others citizens.
posted by Jimbob at 3:43 AM on September 12, 2005

We have to maintain a unified voice abroad. America is about maintaining one's cool image by putting other people down. It's not about workshops and street theater.
posted by nervousfritz at 5:25 AM on September 12, 2005

Parkin's brother is a blogger and has been discussing the situation.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 12:08 PM on September 13, 2005