If You Don't Fight, You Lose!
Case Of Human Rights Thought Police Collapses!

The case brought against an Australia First activist by a Sudanese refugee in the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), all courtesy of the Newcastle University Legal Centre and the Migrant Resource Centre, has collapsed. Let us take you through the documentary evidence.

First you will read our press release which will acquaint you with important details. Then you will read our original response to the allegation of racial vilification brought by Mr. Hakim Makem against Dr. Jim Saleam. Then you will read the reply to the dismissal of the case. The matter is far from over and will feature in the public activities of nationalists in the Greater Newcastle area.


Press Release:

Human Rights Commission ‘Racism’ Case Fails Against Jim Saleam: Questions Must Be Answered By Newcastle ‘Anti-Racists’.

September 16 2005

 

The Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) has withdrawn a complaint of racial vilification against Dr. Jim Saleam

The complaint, in the name of a Newcastle-resident Sudanese refugee. Mr. Hakim Makem, was drafted by the Newcastle University Legal Centre and the Migrant Resource Centre. It accused Jim Saleam of racial vilification arising from a leaflet distributed in Newcastle in January and a rally at Islington Park. The action was withdrawn by HREOC when it suggested there were problems linking the ‘accused’ to the document and with the actual content of the address at the rally which was not ‘unlawful’.

This is not good enough. The effective dismissal of the case did not address any of the issues raised by the ‘accused’ in his reply to the complainant and the HREOC.

Jim Saleam said:

"My response to the initial complaint is on the Internet at

http://ausfirst.alphalink.com.au/hreoc.html

My response to the dismissal of the complaint is also there. I am not happy to have the complaint dismissed on some technical and legal ground. The HREOC and the framers of the complaint were well aware they had a fight on their hands. They took the best course – and ran away.

However, I wanted to know how this complaint came into being, whether the Race Discrimination Commissioner Tom Calma, played any role in concocting it and in particular what remarks are ‘lawful’ in the discussion of immigration, multiculturalism and refugee policy. The HREOC seems very adept at saying what is unlawful, but in shades of an Inquisition or a communist show-trial doesn’t want to state in public what can be said. Now I’d just abhor to break the law in the future: so can they tell me what I am entitled to say in public and what their fellow Australians are allowed to hear?

Now that the HREOC is going to cite Professor Andrew Fraser for racism, and threatening Deakin University that if they publish an unseen article by him in defence of the former White Australia Policy , they will become co-defendants, will I become a co-defendant if I distribute the article or agree publicly with his views?"

The Newcastle University Legal Centre, now dissolved, played a major role in drafting the complaint. Newcastle University academics write the propaganda about changing Newcastle’s ethnic mix, making the city an open place for refugees and selling education overseas. The Migrant Resource Centre which recently received a grant to educate Sudanese in the workings of Australian law, also incited the action. This demonstrably shows that the real complaint did not come from a refugee but from white Australian liberals who wish to silence free speech. The public is entitled to demand accountability of its funded institutions and agencies.

Jim Saleam continued:

"Many people intended to help me in fighting this case. They were not intimidated by a thought police. The Islington Park rally broke new ground in the city despite the claims of the organized Labor, church Green and Trotsykite groups. It showed that by standing up in public the tyranny of a minority over public opinion can be broken."

The Australia First Party is active in the Greater Newcastle and Hunter region. It has grown in terms of contacts, finances and ambitions.

Jim Saleam concluded:

"It is the intention of the party to field a candidate for Mayor of Newcastle in 2008 and to run in the wards. But the real task at the moment is to develop organization in Greater Newcastle and the Hunter area. Novocastrians should keep their eyes open for our posters and check their letterboxes. A more intensive phase in our work is about to begin."

Further Information:

0407732868 ausfirst@alphalink.com.au

 

In The Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission:

Response To An Allegation Of Unlawful Conduct Under The Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Section 18C

Mr. Hakim Makem

v.

James Saleam and Concerned Citizens’ Collective

August 8 2005

Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 5218

Sydney 1042

Attn: Ms. Rocky Clifford : Ref: 2015838FC

Dear Ms. Clifford,

I received your letter dated July 20. It was only recently passed to me from the operator of the postal address to which it was forwarded.

I have replied to you as per the attached document.

I look forward to further correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. James Saleam

 

The Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) has asked me to respond to an allegation by Mr. Hakim Makem, made on his behalf and that of "the Sudanese Community in Newcastle", that the Racial Discrimination Act (!975) has been variously breached by me and by an organization called the ‘Concerned Citizens’ Collective’ (CCC).

Despite my political position taken regarding the HREOC itself and the various Acts which empower it and which it is to otherwise enforce, I shall participate in the current process in so far as it actually refers to my alleged conduct (as explained below).

I reply on the basis that the complaint relates to (i) an allegedly unlawful leaflet entitled: "Concerned Citizens’ Collective: Humanitarianism For Locals Not Sudanese Gangbangers" and allowing there is a link between me and this document (ii) that these leaflets were distributed publicly (iii) that I participated in a public rally on January 22 2005 which either of itself or by something said or done there was also unlawful. Point (iii) is unsure since your letter relates to the "calling" of the rally only.

Necessary Preliminary Regarding Procedural Fairness

I have two concerns regarding procedural fairness.

(i) In the documents provided to me, I read ostensible commentary by Mr. Tom Calma, then an Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner, as reported in The Star, February 1 2005. Here it was said that: "Some of the literature being distributed in the Newcastle area is deeply offensive"….

It can only really be that the leaflet tendered in this proceeding is one of the documents referred to. This seems to imply that this case has suffered from pre-judgement.

I would formally request advice from the HREOC that this case is not tainted with prejudgement, or if Mr. Calma was reported accurately, that the officers appointed to this matter will remain independent. Even so, I ask that the HREOC investigation finds that Mr. Calma’s statement was inappropriate as a type of contempt of his own process. I further request access to all notes, letters and records of other communications between Mr. Calma and any person or entity directly or indirectly involved in the making of the current complaint in order to assess if any proactive measure was in place to formulate this complaint.

(ii) There is also a matter arising from other dealings (sic) I have had with HREOC. I refer to the ‘National Inquiry Into Racist Violence’ of the years 1988 - 91.

In various public documents I have passed sour and expansive comment upon this Inquiry and upon the Report Of The National Inquiry Into Racist Violence. Sections of both the hearings and the Report referred to me. I noted a passing parade of persons who, in the best style of a Mc Carthyist exercise, attempted to implicate me and my political comrades in a wide array of criminality. The Inquiry, operated by a person with an indirect family financial interest in its’ outcome, naturally ‘found’ as it would. I have a concern at deep institutional prejudice against me operating in the HREOC. It is also open that any reasonable person might assume I would not be heard fairly.

I would formally request that the HREOC notes my objection that fairness in any dealings between us is problematic; I further request that the HREOC agrees that any officer appointed to my matter was not party to the National Inquiry Into Racist Violence or associated with any of the witnesses.

Necessary Preliminary Regarding The Framing Of The Complaint: A Counter-Allegation That This Complaint Could Be ‘Polluted’

I have read the complaint form in the purported handwriting of Mr. Makem and a letter signed by him on the letterhead of the Migrant Resource Centre (about the issues); I examined two letters detailing that the University of Newcastle Legal Centre acts for Mr. Makem and the basic statement of the complaint. It seems to be that the Migrant Resource Centre was the prime instigator-source for the complaint although that too is uncertain. There is a suggestion in the letter on Migrant Resource Centre letterhead that the University of Newcastle Legal Centre may have been the proactive force in this affair.

I have also noted various Internet chatter from a putative ‘anti-racist activist’, Mr. Matthew Henderson who has written since December 2004-January 2005 of the likelihood of "legal" means used to silence me and certain associates in the Australia First Party. Mr. Henderson was rather involved in protests against the ‘Concerned Citizens’ Collective’ and myself. A report in the Australian Jewish News publication in July referred to "Jewish professionals" "purposefully" working "behind the scenes" lending Mr. Henderson active support. Given certain comments made by this person at different points almost telescoping events, I am concerned if he has played any role in formulating ‘evidence’. Were any of these "professionals" in liaison with the University of Newcastle Legal Centre and the Migrant Resource Centre?

I have deep reservations over the probity of this complaint and have a suspicion that it is an abuse of the process of the HREOC. It is not the purpose of the HREOC to have truck with vexatious complaints driven by agencies with specific agendas. This may be seen to undermine its’ status and purpose – even in the collective eye of those who support its’ purposes.

I must ask the HREOC to establish the degree of competency of Mr. Makem in written and spoken English. This may be a very vital evidentiary matter. I will ask Mr. Makem if the HREOC does not, but I would prefer your intervention. (It could be that the complainant has felt some apprehension about the leaflet, the rally etc and been misadvised by other persons. His words could have been ‘developed’ into serious expressions concerning fear, vilification, intimidation hatred etc.) I advise the HREOC that I will pursue the questions raised here.

While it is the right of every person to seek legal assistance, I have another concern about this complaint. Both the University of Newcastle proper and the Migrant Resource Centre are not neutral bodies.

The University of Newcastle has been involved in public debates over the validity of its’ overseas student program. It has a financial interest in the maintenance of this program. It has been said in the media by University spokespersons that African students have not been received well at the University. I will try to establish before the HREOC that the University has said this. It could be thought by a reasonable person that the University is sensitive over issues of immigration and overseas students. It is further a matter of record that the University is involved in social planning for Newcastle which involves refugee settlement schemes.

The Migrant Resource Centre has received publicity in July (the HREOC will undoubtedly confirm this) over a grant of $90,000 to assist Sudanese refugees in appreciating Australian law and what constitutes lawful conduct. This alone may suggest that Mr. Makem’s complaint was misconceived. Such a grant would not be tendered if there was not some question over the social mores of these refugees. I note further that the director of this Centre, Ms. Violetta Walsh, is all-but-fanatical in her refugee advocacy; I understand that a report (attached) which cites her saying that racism is terrorism, accurately explains her view. Given the assistance her office has extended to Mr. Makem, I conclude that she regards me as a racist – and therefore, as a terrorist.

I will request Mr. Makem waives his professional legal privilege. I suggest that the HREOC should ask him to do so. It is necessary that the advice given to Mr. Maken be bared. It is more than possible that his complaint has been shaped by other bodies. If this is so, the matter goes beyond any professional legal privilege but is a type of conspiracy to create a public mischief. Such criminal conduct voids professional legal privilege.

I formally advise that I will question Mr. Makem about his legal and other discussions regardless of whether he waives his privilege.

Necessary Preliminary On The Matter Of Costs

As is the experience of proceedings launched in HREOC on the matter of racial vilification and other types of racial discrimination, it often occurs that these cases end up in the Federal Court of Australia for enforcement orders. A rehearing of evidence occurs. It invariably happens that the ‘aggrieved’ person appears with a bevy of lawyers. This is often contrived whereby the complainant is over-represented by senior counsel, junior counsel and a solicitor. This was a feature of matters brought by regular complainant, Mr. Jeremy Jones. A loss by the respondent usually results in an order for costs. I cannot help drawing the conclusion that this is a consideration in the making of complaints, a factor that demands legal reform.

I must formally ask of Mr. Makem now whether he seeks or will seek any costs but I would request that it is the HREOC establishes his view. I must formally ask whether the University of Newcastle Legal Centre or the Migrant Resource Centre will seek costs and request that the HREOC establishes their view. I would further formally request that the HREOC establishes under what legislative or other criteria the said bodies may act for Mr. Makem and are they acting pro bono? If they are acting pro bono, and given the public interest involved in any decision, I may make application to them for similar assistance.

Whilst it may be Mr. Makem’s right to seek costs, this is not a minor matter where issues of credibility are concerned. For the record, I do not wish to engage any private representation at any point. Even if I did so, I would be loath to seek an order against Mr. Makem for costs in the event his complaint proceeds to court and is lost.

The HREOC has asked me four questions. I can reply as follows:

(i) I am not the spokesman of the Concerned Citizens’ Collective and I never was a spokesman for any such organization. I have never joined any such organization.


It is my belief that this organization (sic) does not exist. If it did exist at the time the ‘offending leaflet’ was issued or rally held, I am not in a position to provide information as to the names of any officers. I was never aware that there were any officers. I cannot recall details relating to the instigation of the CCC. I did not speak to the rally of January 22 2005 or to any media as a representative of this organization. At all times I spoke as an officer of the Australia First Party or with one or two other journalists – for myself.

Although this complaint is directed at me, I must now take a formal objection to the continuing of any further inquiry on this issue. Since I am neither now or previously a spokesman for this group nor a member now or previously, I cannot answer for it.

Nonetheless, I shall continue to answer all of your questions to assist in a speedy resolution of this case.


(ii) The HREOC asked me to reply to allegations about the contents of a leaflet, acts of its’ distribution and the calling a public meeting on January 22 2005 contravene Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I did not see these allegations per se in the written complaint of Mr. Makem. I can only assume the allegations were advanced in the specific forms they are, by other persons in the University of Newcastle Legal Centre and the Migrant Resource Centre.

I have examined the leaflet. I did not write this leaflet, nor did I authorise it. I recall having a few copies of it (I believe they were posted to me). I cannot locate these documents now. I do not believe I have publicly distributed any of these leaflets in any way.

Therefore whatever I say about this leaflet is said with the objection that the leaflet’s contents are not necessarily direct statements of my opinion on any matter. I offer an interpretation of the leaflet’s contents that argues it was not unlawful.

The leaflet was (I note your copy and use my memory of seeing printed copies) a A-4 sheet folded to A-5 style. I reply as follows:

a. The front ‘page’ notes the name ‘Concerned Citizens’ Collective’. There is nothing unlawful.

b. The front ‘page’ has a slogan: "Humanitarianism For Locals Not Sudanese Gangbangers". I understand that the term ‘Gangbanger’ is a commonly used description for a member of a ‘gang’ as defined in criminological literature.

It would seem that the leaflet demands that the humanitarian impulse be directed to local (Novocastrian citizens) not aliens. I see nothing unlawful here.

Does it suggest that all Sudanese persons or Mr. Makem are gangbangers? I do not consider that it does. In recent times, it has become necessary to speak of particular crimes as arising from particular factors within some communities. Just as in the past no one suggested that all Chinese persons were Tongs, or that all Italian persons were Mafiosi, we are now confronted with Islamist terrorists, Lebanese rape gangs and so forth. It might be that the complainant is personally angry at the term being applied to Sudanese, but this does not sustain the existence of an offence. Other communities accept the existence of racially or ethnically specific criminal fraternities and try to deal with it. The HREOC is well aware that leading politicians and police officers have necessarily used this language. Any registered concern over crime would be in the public interest.

It is noted that there was and is conflicting information regarding crime amongst Sudanese persons in Newcastle (a matter to which I will return).

c. On ‘page two’, a sub-section "Who We Are" contains descriptions of the supposed Collective. It is an unremarkable section except for the phrase "so-called Sudanese refugees". This was said to cause offence. It is open to debate as to who many of these people may be, how they were chosen to come to Australia, what degree of privation they were supposed to have suffered etc. whether their problems could have been solved in Africa by the African Union or by taking up arms in their defence and so forth. The United Nations has long advocated sanctuary in the country most immediate. But that is a long-bow interpretation of "so-called". A reasonable person could question the bona-fides of some of (or perhaps all of) these Sudanese as refugees on any grounds. A registered concern that criminal elements may mask themselves as refugees is also a matter of public interest. There is nothing unlawful there.

d. On ‘page two’, a subsection "What We Stand For" is a long paragraph.

- It says that "locals" should "enjoy a lifestyle free of multicultural disasters..". That is fair comment. Multiculturalism has been a disaster although the HREOC may maintain otherwise. The leaflet dissents from official ideology but that alone is not yet unlawful. A debate around the question of multiculturalism is in the public interest.

- Then a lifestyle free of "pro-immigration nutcases"… I tend to think that is fair and a genuine belief of the person making the statement; he wants a policy that has a result benefiting him. The immigration debate on both sides has its’ cranks. There is nothing unlawful there and in any case it does not relate to Mr. Makem and his community.

e. On ‘page two’, a section "How To Help Out" is innocuous. There is nothing unlawful there.

f. On ‘page three’, a section "The Truth Exposed" says that I will "expose the real reason why Sudanese refugees are being brought into Newcastle". It went on to attack the "refugee advocates", the "Labor Party" and "university cronies".

None of this directly involves Mr. Makem but seems to be a projection of something it was thought I would say somewhere else. Interestingly, it is now refugee advocates and University persons who now act in this complaint. It seems to me they doth protest too much.

g. On ‘page three’, there is an advertisement for a "Public Meeting". I was invited to Islington Park to talk. There is nothing unlawful there. The reference to this Park as the "place of Sudanese riot" (a matter somewhat conceded by the complainant did occur) is really – meaningless too.

(h) On ‘page four’, some contact details and sponsorship are provided. I cannot comment on any of this as it does not concern me. I have no record of Australia First Party Inc being a "sponsor" of anything – other than of my appearance at the rally. In any case the sponsors are not an issue here because nothing exists to suggest they authored or authorised the said leaflet.

In summation, the leaflet taken as a whole might be said to cause some annoyance on the level of political opposition. However, I must suggest that it should be viewed in the proper light: it is a statement against refugee settlement. As I understand it, it is still lawful to oppose refugee policy, although the current process appears to be a back-door-means to stifle discussion. There are several important issues canvassed in the leaflet and a discussion of these things is in the public interest. As I understand the present situation it is lawful to state that refugee immigration should be terminated, treaties rejected and so forth. The United Nations’ statements on refugees appear to offer by default any number of lawful objections to refugee settlement (including settlement or protection in the nearest place). It appears to be a genuine statement of belief issued in the public interest.

If this leaflet was distributed by any person, then the complaint must relate to whomsoever distributed it or authored it.

I must place a formal request to HREOC: given that it is usually an agency reviewing unlawful conduct, it is a corollary that it is an agency able to define lawful conduct. I must formally request that the HREOC states what lawful commentary could be published or spoken: against the proposition that the Sudanese refugees be moved to Newcastle ; against the proposition that multiculturalism is a good policy ; about the existence of criminal elements within a given community ; about any perceived loss of local and Australian identities ; whether business interests wish to exploit certain classes of immigrant as cheap non union labour. I state that the HREOC is obliged to define these matters because its’ role is conceived as partly educative.

The HREOC refers to the "calling" of a public rally. I was not aware that the "calling" of any rally is ipso facto unlawful even if there is a suggestion that the tone of this rally might reflect the motives or ideas of those who issued the document "calling" for it. It would have to be a matter of assessing the content of the rally. The HREOC seems to be saying by inference that it wishes to ban rallies on the apprehension that some matter discussed there might be unlawful. This cannot be a position the HREOC wishes to take? The calling of the rally discloses no unlawful conduct. I did not ‘call’ the meeting.

It is likely the case that the Newcastle media has tape recorded material of this rally. From the best of my knowledge and belief nothing unlawful was said there. Indeed, I was conscious of (media-reported) political threats to prosecute me for any unlawful words spoken there. I therefore exercised some considerable forethought as to what words were spoken. I recollect that I launched political attacks on the Mayor of Newcastle, the University of Newcastle, the Socialist Alliance and the Australian Labor Party. I discussed the division of the city into two groups: those who welcome the globalist future and those who don’t. I do not recall any slur on any person on racial grounds or any incitement against a person on racial grounds. I pointed out that some refugees would become exploited labour and this was a motive behind the program. I did point out that certain welfare agencies practised a decided discrimination towards the new arrivals.

I say that this rally was in the public interest. It had the one major result of locating a woman whose children had been accosted sexually by Sudanese criminals. The police investigation was stymied, I assume by ‘political correctness’. As a result of this rally, the matter was pursued by the police. Mr. Makem could only support this investigation. The rally was otherwise in the public interest (as below).

I must formally request that the HREOC establishes from Mr. Makem whether he was aware of the allegation of sexual assault prior to the rally or did he become aware after the rally; further, given that he cannot condone in any way this conduct, would he not have done all in his power to expose it?; why does he think that the Migrant Resource Centre has received a grant to educate his Sudanese compatriots in Australian law?

(iii) The HREOC has advised me of the exemptions to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Given that I did not write or authorise the leaflet at issue, or to the best of my knowledge and belief distribute it, it does not concern me. Given that I have analysed the leaflet as above, I will state that it was a fair comment. Its’ contents were composed as an obviously genuine belief of the person writing it. It was put out obviously reasonably and in good faith. As to public interest: there is State interest and the interests of the people. The State considers the public interest to be the enforcement of refugee settlement and the effective silencing of critics. The people demand the ending of the program and freedom of expression. In any event, criticism of crime and the detection of offences are in the public interest.

Given that I was present at a rally which was ‘called’, I must state that I uttered no unlawful words and did my best to choose my words with great care. The video record would prove that.

I note the Section 18: "Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin". This is of course a political charge and does not really relate to any such behaviour. Of course, it is possible to envisage such a case, but that is not the current application and the framers (sic) of this complaint are well aware of it. The Section is there to be used in a political trial.

I state that nothing I either participated in or can understand could notionally have resulted from distribution of the material at issue was "reasonably likely in all of the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.." anyone on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin."

I cannot accept that offence, insult, humiliation or intimidation exists simply because a person says that it does. This is something that renders the legislation problematical unless these things can be quantified. I am prepared to put the HREOC and the complainant to these tests. I further argue that these words, although they are ordinary words, are failures in expressing the depth of concern which should register in a person who wishes to invoke the Section. There is the problem cited above of quantification once the process has been polluted by interventionist lawyers.

(iv) I cannot advise "if the Collective is prepared" to submit to this process. I am not a spokesman for it. I do not believe the organization exists. As previously stated, if there is any matter which involves me I am prepared to accept "conciliation" in this matter.

What Does Mr. Makem Desire?

 

In his complaint, Mr. Makem asks three things: he wants the distribution of racist material stopped, appropriate action (undefined) taken by HREOC and a public education campaign undertaken in defence of his community.

I can assure Mr. Maken and the HREOC that I do not condone the distribution of "racist" material. The problem lies in what racism means. For the record I do not believe (and there are no materials extant over a thirty year public career to say the contrary) that any race of humans beings is "superior" to another. I do believe that the races are "different" only. I do not reason that this "difference" implies that one race of human beings should vilify (your word but with its’ dictionary meaning) or hate (your word but with its’ dictionary meaning) another. I do believe that any attempt to, on its home ground, bring about conditions for the disappearance or decimation of a racial group or the destruction of its’ culture – is organized racism. It seems Mr. Makem might have experienced that in Sudan just as I feel that in Australia. On that ground, I would support morally Mr. Makem taking up armed struggle in his homeland in the defence of his right to ethnic survival. From that point of view I am happy to state I will not distribute racist material.

I note that "appropriate action" is not defined by Mr. Makem. I will not comment further.

I note that Mr. Makem says public education is required. I cannot say if that is within the scope of the present complaint. I would of course object to that.

In his written complaint, Mr. Makem says that he has not approached the persons who have allegedly offended him as it would be counter-productive. For my part, I would look forward to a meeting with Mr. Makem. I would ask if I could speak privately with him. I would sincerely and in good faith offer him an Australian perspective on the psychology of ‘white liberals’, on agencies like HREOC and a view on other groups which may seek to manipulate him or his fellows. I fear that the advice he has received about me personally is prejudicial muck served up by certain professional ‘anti-racists’, journalists and others who allege I seek to do him physical harm. On that level I wish to allay his fears.

I would generally sum up:

I submit that ultimately there is no issue to be determined by the HREOC and that the current complaint should be settled by conciliation. Part of the complaint is misdirected. I can only really be asked to account for spoken material at the public rally.

However, I will participate in a discussion relating to resolving the question of whether there was unlawful conduct. It is my concern that this entire matter is ultimately going elsewhere by the enthusiastic pursuit of the forces who wish to manipulate Mr. Makem and his fellows, up to and including using them as exploited cheap labour – a scenario demonstrated through the ignominious role of Stepan Kerkasharian of New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board and refugee labour in Griffith.

I will counsel the complainant against allowing this course. He wishes to achieve a certain solution. He may benefit from the meeting at HREOC and a discussion of issues with me. I look forward to such a meeting. He will not benefit from an attempt of certain liberals to give me yet another – political trial.


_____________________________________________________

September 15 2005

Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission

G.P.O. Box 5218

Sydney 1042

Attn: Hien Le

Re: your letter August 25: Hakim Makem v Concerned Citizens’ Collective

I understand it will be the recommendation of the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) to the complainant that the action against me cannot proceed.

It seems the HREOC has made findings of fact to the effect that I was neither the spokesperson nor a member of the allegedly offending ‘Concerned Citizens’ Collective’. I would appreciate advice confirming that the complainant is bound by your findings. The complainant may otherwise argue that your general hypothesis is incorrect. The powers of the HREOC apparently extend only to a ‘notice of termination’ (against me) which implies this case could proceed directly to the Federal Court. I say this despite the fact this case was in its preliminary stage. The manner in which I have been replied to suggests that your inquiry was to be as per a coroner’s inquest: an exercise in evidence-gathering until a ‘case’ was established for Court action.

Further, I am rather disturbed by the ambiguity of your letter and by the non-reply to matters I raised in my reply to the original complaint.

You said "no further actions would be proposed to the Commission". By whom? It was then said that I have confirmed that I was "not involved in the alleged acts referred to in the complaint"; this is not correct as I was indeed at the rally at the Park although I denied any wrongdoing occurred there. These issues require clarification. Has a notice of termination been issued ‘against’ (sic) me?

You would recall that I asked a number of questions of the HREOC. I do not consider these issues are dead. Quite the contrary, these issues are of importance to the circumstances surrounding this case generally, and secondly, are questions which cannot be subsumed by the ‘dismissal’ of the matter against me.

I have been politically abused by the Newcastle University Legal Centre and the Migrant Resource Centre. I have little doubt they fabricated this matter using an impressionable man as an instrument. They failed to get what they wanted if only because the HREOC recognised the futility of the exercise. Nonetheless, I must respectfully insist on a full reply on the questions I raised in my statement. For the current purposes, I will restate the questions:

  1. What role, if any, did your Mr. Calma play in the formulation of this complaint?
  2. If it is found Mr. Calma was pro-active in this case and pre-judged it in the public media, what action will be taken against him?
  3. Will the HREOC try to determine (even if this case proceeds no further) whether the Newcastle University Law Centre and the Migrant Resource Centre were instrumental in the composition of the complaint?
  4. The HREOC should state not only what sorts of conduct are unlawful, but what sorts of conduct are lawful. I must formally request that the HREOC states what lawful commentary could have been (and can still be) made: against the proposition that the Sudanese refugees be moved to Newcastle ; against the proposition that multiculturalism is a good policy ; about the existence of criminal elements within a given community ; about any perceived loss of local and Australian identities ; whether business interests wish to exploit certain classes of immigrant as cheap non union labour. I state that the HREOC is obliged to define these matters because its’ role is conceived as partly educative.
  5. What mechanisms does the HREOC employ to police its own processes ie. determine the bona fides of the complaints before it?

If this case proceeds against any other person, I would suggest it is now tainted by the manner in which it has hitherto been conducted. I feel that I am duty bound to campaign in public concerning this case.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

 

Homepage