Security and secrecy

In a world where truth is not respected, and violence is a common weapon in social, political, economic and ideological conflict, security and secrecy is a tricky business.

Those who are responsible for security need to be able to keep information secret. It is not always possible to explain why decisions are made, often because to explain and justify the decision would be to put sources at risk.

But there is a real risk in this need for secrecy, a danger that secrecy become the cloak to hide that which should be shared. Secrecy can be a form of self-protection and a way to avoid accountability and appropriate scrutiny.

Security agencies are as likely to be ideologically driven as any other body, and to be shaped by personal interests (including the desire for promotion or to protect personal agendas) as any other organization. For example, there is significant evidence that ASIO offers quite biased assessments of the Palestinian community and the place of Israel in the world.

And what happens when ASIO decides that people are a security risk. Just a couple of weeks ago Ranjini was living a fairly normal life in Australia. She had fled from Sri Lanka, was found to be a refugee, married, had children, was newly pregnant, and settled into a new life in Melbourne.

And then without warning, she and her two sons are whisked away to the Villawood detention centre in Sydney because ASIO decided she was a security threat. She cannot defend herself because no-one will tell her what she is accused of. Along with her boys she faces indefinite detention and separation from her husband.

No-one wants to jeopardize national security, but there has to be a way by which one trustworthy person can review such cases in ways that protect intelligence sources and the rights of individuals. The last Labor Conference asked for such a mechanism, but the government will do nothing. “Legal complexity” is the excuse, although the real reason is more like people whose lives depend on secrets hate allowing others to check what they claim to know. This is about power and control.

We need to protect human rights in a culture where the use of the words ‘security risk’ seem to wipe out the rights we claim to be trying to protect. ‘Legal complexity’ is a lousy excuse for inaction, and an abdication of responsibility by governments of their need to hold our security organization accountable.

Union membership as Christian Practice

Like a whole lot of other people I recently received a request to support a couple of house staff working for the Hyatt Hotel chain in the US. They were fired a few days after protesting against what they saw as humiliating treatment by other staff.

I occasionally talk to people who feel that they have been poorly treated in their workplace – abused, treated with disrespect, not paid proper allowances, or denied other rights. They feel powerless to defend themselves, worries that if they stand up for themselves they will be fired.

Our workplaces are marked by individual contracts, part time and casual work, and by outsourcing of jobs and labour hire companies. Workplaces are also marked by decreasing union membership, partly as a result of changes in the workplace and partly because people don’t see any immediate benefit for themselves and don’t give much weight to ideas of worker solidarity.

Christian faith isn’t simply about what we believe but the habits and patterns of our life that give expression to what we believe. It is about embodied social practices.

I think that belonging to an appropriate union or professional association is or ought to be a Christian practice. Despite all the bad publicity about corruption in unions, belonging to a trade union is a practice of solidarity, community and care for those under enormous pressure in the present workplace. Unions create another locus of power in a society which would be otherwise totally overwhelmed by big business

Listening to Indigenous voices

One of the truly destructive marks of colonialism is the undermining of leadership and authority structures as a way of destroying organised opposition. Colonial powers, including churches, privilege other voices and choose who they will listen to. Usually those voices are the more co-operative ones or the less angry ones or the voices of people trying to find a place in the new order.

The more recent equivalent is the pretence of ‘consultation.’ Government representatives fly into communities, hold brief meetings around pre-set agendas and programs, and fly out again before the last word is said. The cultural divide is so wide, and the power imbalance so massive that consultation is a sham, particularly when there is no intention to make any of the changes suggested. Decisions have already been made, driven by political assessments, and minor tweakings are the only possibility.

One of the things which the Northern Territory Emergency Response shows, though, is that people will not be silenced that easily. Those with leadership responsibilities in their community will find ways to speak. Recently there was a meeting of representatives from the people of the 8 nations in the Western, Central and East Arnhem Land areas of the Northern Territory. They gathered under Yolngu Makarr Dhuni (Yolngu Nations Assembly) to express their rejection of the Strong Futures Bill, affirm their place in the land, and call for genuine partnership and self-determination rather than this sort of top-down intervention in their lives.

For Christians this is about justice, hearing the voices of those who are marginalized, and deciding who we will sit with in our community. It is about creating spaces so that people can speak and be heard.

Another voice which is offering alternative voices to government propaganda on this issue and bilingual schooling is the website of the Northern Synod of the Uniting Church: http://www.ns.uca.org.au/  Check it out. Share information with your local Federal member.