SydneyPEN

Creative Pros Series in Sydney

2007-08-14T20:24:00.000+10:00

On August 7th, Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee member, Bonny Cassidy, spoke about being a young and emerging writer for the City of Sydney's Creative Pros series held at Customs House. This is a series of panel discussions with young professionals in various fields, and last week featured writing. Alongside Bonny were slam poet Miles Merrill and journalist Valerie Khoo. The audience was well-sized and consisted mostly of people thinking about changing vocational directions or developing their beginnings in the writing field. Needless to say, Bonny urged all interested writers to join Sydney PEN for networks, support, fellow young writers and for perspectives on and involvement in the current state of writing locally and worldwide. Thanks to the City of Sydney and the Pine Street Arts Centre in particular for the organisation of this fantastic evening.

Sydney PEN at the Sydney Writers' Festival!

2007-05-31T12:00:00.000+10:00

Sydney PEN and its Young Writers Committee will be participating in a number of Sydney Writers' Festival events this year. Please join us for these exciting discussions!

1. Freedom to Write: The PEN Panel
Sunday June 3 2007, 11.30am - 1pm, SDC 4. Panellists include Eliot Weinberger, Bei Ling, Adib Khan, Rawi Hage and Sydney PEN President Angela Bowne SC.

2. Interface, Vibewire's annual magazine anthology, Launch
Thursday May 31, 2007, 7pm - 9pm, Bangarra Mezzanine
Featuring Interface contributors including Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee member, Hugo Bowne-Anderson.

3. Interface: Fresh Voices, New Ideas
Sunday, June 3, 2007, 11.30am - 1pm, SDC 1
Interface contributors discuss their work and the process of developing a piece for publication. Panel includes Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee member, Hugo Bowne-Anderson.

More Information:

1. The Freedom to Write: The PEN Panel
Sunday June 3 2007, 11.30am - 1pm, SDC 4

Eliot Weinberger's essays represent an important dissenting voice of critical insight into American politics. Bei Ling was imprisoned for publishing his journal in China. Adib Khan consistently embraces intellectual freedom without trepidation in his novels, as does Lebanese-Canadian writer and artist Rawi Hage. They discuss freedom of expression with Angela Bowne, President of Sydney PEN. Sydney PEN is a centre of International PEN that campaigns on behalf of writers around the world persecuted for the expression of their thoughts.

2. Interface, Vibewire's annual magazine anthology, Launch
Thursday May 31, 2007, 7pm - 9pm, Bangarra Mezzanine

Interface, Vibewire's annual magazine anthology, is about bringing promising young writers and thinkers together with their more experienced peers to create essays, feature articles and opinion pieces on social, political and cultural issues that provoke, engage and amuse the reader.Hugo appearing and his essay on the art of sedition.

3. Interface: Fresh Voices, New Ideas
Sunday, June 3, 2007, 11.30am - 1pm, SDC 1

Vibewire's Interface is an anthology of the most exciting new work by non-fiction writers aged 30 years and under. Contributors Amy Corderoy, Nicholas Carah, Scott Hickie, Fiona Wright and Hugo Bowne-Anderson talk about their stories and the process of developing a seed idea for publication with Triple J News presenter Meredith Griffiths.

Hugo Bowne-Anderson is a contributor to Vibewire's Interface anthology. He is a writer and mathematician, currently completing a PhD in Pure Mathematics at UNSW; he also teaches there. He has written numerous plays (produced at the Edge and Cellar Theatres), short and not-so-short, essays and short fiction. He is also a member of the Sydney PEN Centre Young Writers' Committee.

Local Press

2007-05-09T09:44:00.000+10:00

When I did an interview with a council worker a couple of years ago I asked him about an issue that had popped up in the local newspaper. "That’s just the local rag," he said dismissively.

But according to Bob Carr’s former Chief of Staff Bruce Hawker, research shows that not only do people prefer to read their local rag, but people also read their local papers more carefully than the big city metros. Scott Richardson reports.

Hawker writes in a report for his PR firm that people are more interested in things that impact us directly and immediately. While we might be shocked at the horrors of Iraq he says, we know that we probably care a lot more about the funding cuts to the school down the road: the one we used to go to, the one our kids now go to. Just as importantly, we feel we can do a lot more to save the local school than quell violence on the other side of the world.

“The local media has unprecedented influence and power,” Hawker says.

The Manly Daily is the local paper where I live and to my knowledge is the only daily local paper in Sydney. Indeed, for many people on the Northern Beaches it is the only paper they read. It meant that at the last state election the paper found itself at the centre of a PR battle as two local Independent MPs and two Liberal candidates fought hard for every photo and every story.

The editor of the Manly Daily Kathy Lipari told the Sydney Morning Herald “we take an even-handed approach and I have had the same complaints from all sides of local politics that their press releases and photos don't receive the run that they think they deserve.”

There is no doubting the role the Manly Daily played in getting local issues such as the fight to save Mona Vale hospital and the awful transport situation to the forefront of the election debate in the area.

Not all local news need be in print form of course. Newly created website Village Voice, developed by FPC Community Media Group aims to provide news and local information for people living in the greater Sydney area. While maintaining regular journalists, the site also encourages citizen journalism: allowing locals to write their own stories and post up notices about local events.

So local rags, whether it be jingoistic newspapers or websites promoting ‘citizen journalism’ are here to stay. They have an importance role to play in making the issues and concerns of people heard by those in power and in getting something done about it.

Our Declining State of Press Freedom

2007-05-07T21:34:00.000+10:00

Last month the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) released their 2007 Press Freedom Report titled Official Spin: Censorship and Control of the Australian Press 2007. The report highlights the declining state of press freedom in Australia, particularly with regard to laws enacted in the name of national security. Scott Richardson takes a look at the report's findings and its implications.

The MEAA report discusses the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's report into sedition laws. The report suggested that the offence of urging of others to use force should be clearly intentional with the intent being for violence to occur and that a jury should take into consideration the context for which the alleged seditious comments occurred, that is, in an industrial dispute or an artistic performance for example.

The report notes that it took Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock five days to ignore all 27 recommendations and make no amendments.

George Williams, the Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at UNSW writes in the MEAA report:

"These examples demonstrate how fragile freedom of speech is in Australia. They expose how we assume, rather than actually protect, the freedom. Like other democratic nations, we ought to grant expression specific legal protection in a national charter of rights."

The report goes on to describe the manipulation of non-government organisations (NGOs). Dr Sarah Maddison of UNSW writes that the Federal Government has engaged in unprecedented attacks on NGOs that disagree with Government policy. Dr Maddison argues that questions on their accountability and their future classification as charitable organisations are used to quell their dissenting views. Meanwhile other more ‘disciplined’ NGOs are elevated by funding and through the placement of members onto Government boards.

Dr Maddison writes: "Like individual citizens, community groups are being worn down and are increasingly reluctant to engage in the democratic process because they no longer believe that they can make a difference. There are grounds for serious concern that the longer this continues the more difficult it will be to reshape and rebuild the structures of democratic participation."

The report also discusses the increasing problems with Freedom of Information laws, the increasing concentration of the media market and attacks on the ABC.

It’s not just the MEAA that have been pointing to the worrying status of free press in Australia.

Australia has dropped two places on the Reporters Without Borders annual press freedom index for 2007 to 35th. According to Reporters without Border’s annual report "Australia lost ground because of anti-terrorist laws potentially dangerous for journalists." Australia is now behind developing African nations Benin, Ghana and Namibia.

The RWB report continues: "In February, the government also banned the press from freely covering the arrival in the country of Papuan refugees. Generally speaking, numerous restrictions are imposed on journalists wanting to cover the plight of people in Australia’s camps for asylum-seekers."

The International Federation of Journalists has entered the debate regarding the changes to Australia’s cross-media ownership laws. The IFJ General Secretary Aiden White said "if (the media ownership) laws lead to fewer voices in a media landscape then that is an attack on the right to freedom of expression...in a democracy, when the power to control news and information is reduced to a handful, then that is a fundamental assault on democracy."

Freedom of Information

2007-05-06T18:37:00.000+10:00

An important part of our democracy is the ability to access privileged information through Freedom of Information legislation. Particularly for journalists who are charged with the responsibility of informing the public, the ability to apply for and be granted documents through FoI is essential. Unfortunately, many FoI requests drag on for years without a result leaving journalists frustrated and the public in the dark. Scott Richardson takes a look at the efficiency of FoI in Australia.

This week the NSW Government announced that its election promise to widen the Spit Bridge in Sydney’s northern beaches has been dumped.

Despite rumours it was going to be dropped, the Government swore by their promise, which formed a significant part of the local Independent MP’s campaign to be re-elected to the seat of Manly.

The Liberal candidate in the seat had launched Freedom of Information requests before the election to determine whether the widening proposal would ultimately go ahead, however there was no response.

Only now, after the election, has the decision to not go ahead with the proposal been announced.

The impotency of our FoI laws in this case clearly shows the ramifications for democracy and how a Government, by ignoring FoI, can try and manipulate an electorate.

This is of course not the only example of FoI failures in Australia.

The recent High Court decision in McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury also demonstrated the limited scope of FoI laws in Australia.

The Australian Press Council said this decision gave “fresh impetus to suppress information that is embarrassing or politically inconvenient.”

News Limited Chairman and Chief Executive John Hartigan was quoted in The Age as saying it was “difficult not to conclude that the Freedom of Information laws are now effectively lost as an avenue for making governments open, transparent and accountable.”

Indeed, there are inherent defects in the Freedom of Information Act (1982) that allow Government agencies to excuse themselves from revealing requested information.

For example, Section 24 of the Act says that FoI requests can be refused if "in the case of an agency--would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations."

The first difficulty here is the ambiguity of the phrase ‘unreasonably.’ What is reasonable or unreasonable is at the discretion of the agency itself. Michal Alhadeff’s report Denying the Public’s Right to Know recommends this power be balanced against a public interest provision.

Another issue is with Section 33 (1)(a)(iii) which states that information can be withheld if it "would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth." So does that mean any information of wrongdoing on behalf of the Government, whether it be a trivial error or an issue with serious implications, may be withheld and never come to public attention?

Surely FoI is in need of serious reform and could be strengthened by the following amendments:

1. Create a new FoI system that stops the Government having the ability to make a
final determination of whether certain information is within the scope of the
Freedom of Information Act by abolishing 'conclusive certificates.'

2. Creation of an independent tribunal that adjudicates FoI disputes.

3. Enforce penalties on officials and/or departments that deliberately hinder FoI
requests.

Michal Alhadeff in her report also recommended the following changes:

4. Redraft the language of the Act so that it explicitly favours disclosure of
information.

5. Make all provisions that provide exemption from FoI subject to a ‘tangible harm’
test.

6. Create a ‘new culture’ by promoting FoI inside government and create incentives
to FoI officers as well as comprehensive advice on FoI changes.

7. Create a collective of journalists, academics and interest groups to establish an
information management system so that information is easily traceable.

It should be noted that the federal opposition have recently signalled their intention to make FoI easier and more accessible. We now wait in hope for Mr Howard to match the ALP.

Online Political Campaigning

2007-05-03T15:53:00.000+10:00

The effectiveness of online political campaigning is contentious. While many politicians view the email templates available from political lobby groups as spam, some of the larger online campaigns have seen great results - GetUp!'s 2006 petition to seek more funding for the ABC accumulated 75,000 signatures and the national broadcaster subsequently received an extra $88.2 million. Scott Richardson reports.

There’s no doubt one of the great things about the Internet has been the ability to communicate. In recent years we’ve seen lobby groups using online petitions and email campaigns to get their message to politicians.

One of these campaigns was from the NSW National Parks Association (NPA) who on their website set up a generic email template to send to state MPs including the Premier Morris Iemma.

The NPA got an unexpected response from the Government’s IT staff telling them to stop their emails, which they labelled spam.

“We are experiencing a high volume of spam from an IP address registered to your organization,” the email to the NPA was reported to have said.

“The pattern and content of these email constitutes spam under the Commonwealth Spam Act of 2003. Please investigate and take action to prevent further spam from these addresses.”

However the Spam Act (2003) only seeks to stop forms of commercial electronic messages not emails sent from individuals. Section 44 expressly states the Act isn’t to be used to stop the constitutional right to freedom of political communication established by the High Court in Lange v ABC: “This Act does not apply to the extent (if any) that it would infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication.”

Although it appears that any attempt by the NSW Government to take action would be stopped in its tracks, it is nonetheless a worrying sign; worrying in the sense that the Government will try and deter people from writing about genuine concerns and worrying that elected representatives see emails of concern by their constituents as spam.

The spam debate arose when the political advocacy website GetUp! began in 2005 and Coalition MPs received some 15,000 emails in a few days.

On his website Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett says, “I know many MPs genuinely think of email ‘campaigns’ as basically equivalent to spam. I think this is silly but I guess it says something about the different way many people perceive communication by email compared to letters and phone calls. That said, I’ve known MPs who thought that any time they got a heap of phone calls or letters from people complaining about their actions or views, it was the result of an organised campaign by their political opponents.”

This week it was reported that in New Zealand a woman’s email to Telecom NZ was blocked because her first name, Gay, was tagged as an offensive word and “inappropriate for business-like communication.”

The case demonstrates just how easily emails can be sorted and ignored.

It still seems uncertain whether email campaigns are an effective way of expressing political opinion and grievances. It’s up to us to continue to think of creative ways to express our views and to make sure our opinions aren’t destined for the junk folder.

Celebrating Talkback

2007-05-03T15:46:00.000+10:00

There is no doubt that talkback radio is an important barometer of public opinion in Australia. But at what point does talkback move from vehicle of free speech to mouthpiece for the inflammatory and discriminative? Scott Richardson muses on the question as talkback turns 40.

This month is the 40 year anniversary of talkback radio in Australia. It was April 1967 when Mike Walsh began his program 2-Way Radio on 2SM.

Revolutionary as it was at the time, talkback is now entrenched in Australian broadcasting. According to Commercial Radio Australia over 50 commercial stations in Australia run talkback shows with one in four Australians tuning in.

However with the controversies in recent years over shock jocks such as Alan Jones, is talkback really a bastion of free speech as the shock jocks claim? Or is it just a weapon for petty grievances and prejudice?

Talkback hosts will tell you free speech is the name of the game. John Laws himself has said that talkback is “a way of really keeping in touch with Australia.”

Indeed, when John Howard went on Charles Woolley’s Across Australia, Terry Hicks rang in and put his questions directly to the Prime Minister who agreed to talk to him on air. “I never refused to take a call from anybody,” the PM said.

Mark Day’s blog on The Australian news website put it well: “Talkback is a worthy and legitimate tool for news-oriented radio. Used to seek out expert opinion or to hear politicians’ justifications for the decisions that affect our communities, or as a way of informing people about what’s happening in their back yards, it is invaluable.

“Used as a method of generating cheap programming - a pot-stirring host inciting his listeners and inviting them to come on air to rant in response - it sinks instantly into a world of the trite and the trivial.”

There is always plenty of colour in talkback of course. Stan Zemanek has called Germaine Greer “a grub, a bitch, a bitter and twisted old tart.” Jones described the men that bashed the Cronulla life savers as “Middle Eastern thugs.”

So what is the alternative? Have the Australian Communications and Media Authority determined for us what can and cannot be broadcast or printed as it did with their Alan Jones ruling?

When there have been incursions of free speech such as the blocking of a site parodying the Prime Minister or the serving of writs by logging company Gunns there are (rightly) many jumping up and down.

But when people like Jones gets similar treatment, who wants to defend what seems to be the indefensible?

The answer is simple – you don’t have to. The point is their right to say it even if what they say is arguably ignorant, uninformed or downright racist and inflammatory.

We need to take heed of Voltaire’s famous adage, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The Censorship of Online Content in Australia

2007-04-15T19:55:00.000+10:00

In this week's post Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee member Nick Landreth explores the online censorship debate.

At an awards night speech on 21 March, the Federal Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, reconfirmed her government's commitment to 'protecting Australian families on-line', outlining its role as "ensuring measures are in place that restrict access to offensive online content and protect children from exposure to content that is unsuitable for them." She outlined a new scheme for filtering offensive content, motivated primarily to delimit the reach of those publishing material endorsing violence and sexual abuse.

This address is reflective of much public discussion regarding internet regulation in Australia over the last decade or so. Whilst an authority overseeing illegal material in such an anarchic domain is of some necessity, it also raises concerns over the government’s powers over other internet content.

Amongst a mix of Commonwealth, State and Territory criminal laws pertaining to this content stands Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 which was inserted by the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999. Schedule 5, while dealing with more specific infringements, enables the Federal government regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, to issue 'take-down' notices to internet service providers carrying what is considered , 'likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult'.

In a political climate where publishers’ incitement of insecurity and moral impropriety is considered an offence, one begins to worry how long it will be before the phrase 'likely to cause offence' is stretched to cover anything likely to stir political discord.

This ability to command the removal of online content has already become an issue to some Australian writers. The reality of the situation is that under current laws, a determination to order the deletion of material does not require any parliamentary approval or a publicised legal excuse. In March last year, internet service provider Melbourne IT removed Richard Neville's satirical website johnhowardpm.org from its servers. For 3 days Neville was given no explanation why this had occurred. Eventually it appeared that a mock transcript apologising for Australia's continued involvement in Iraq he had posted 36 hours prior to the site's removal had been so offensive that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had complained that the use of the domain name johnhowardpm.org infringed John Howard's intellectual property rights. Neville expressed confusion over why established legal recourse for pursuing intellectual property infringement complaints was not followed, and discovered that Melbourne IT had received calls from three Australian Federal Police following the posting. Melbourne IT would not disclose the subject of these calls.

A year down the track, an early draft of a new Content Services Bill from Coonan's department was released mid-March pushing to make content broadcast over mobile telephones and the internet liable to the same government scrutiny as video game and film classification. Alarm raised by the Australian Publishers Association over government censorship of the written content they provide across the web has led to a redrafting of this bill, but still Australian governmental bodies’ ability to arbitrarily proscribe publications on the internet remains unaddressed.

Convention has kept serious interference with Australian internet publishing relatively minimal, but the anti-censorship lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia has noted that the power of our legislative authorities over internet service providers and the material they carry is amongst the most extensive in the world. The Iranian administration, one of Reporters Without Borders' top fifteen 'Enemies of the Internet', has chosen to exercise the control it has over internet content and ordered the registration of all Iranian websites. Websites that do not meet the criteria for registration or choose not to register can not be accessed within Iran, nor can unregistered Iranian information channels be accessed from abroad. At the same time Iranian authorities, like ours, are increasingly using the internet to spread sanctioned information about Iran in order to influence opinion and communicate their ideals.

Here we have a situation where information is passed if its authors are granted conditional permission, a severe instance of censorship denying expression that does not conform to state-endorsed guidelines. Whilst Iran's is an extreme case, it is perturbing for Australians publishing on the web that the only failsafe against our government engaging similar powers seems to be our trust in them not to.

The Future of Australian Literature

2007-03-26T14:04:00.000+10:00

Sydney PENs latest event gathered eminent academics and authors to discuss Australian literature, and does it have a future? Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee member Jeff Errington was there and in this week's post he takes a look at the important role readers play in our literature's future.

There has been an interesting amount of response to the recent Sydney PEN event Australian literature: does it have a future?…my answer is: God I hope so!

Professor Elizabeth Webby opened the event by contextualising one of Sydney PENs first members - Dorothy Mackellar - as the friend of Joseph Conrad, who was at the first PEN meeting in London. Professor Webby went on to say that Mackellar would have been horrified that such a discussion has even had to of taken place. The event itself has already been nicely summarised by Rosemary Neill, but I would like to chart its waters a little more.

I found Delia Falconer's comments particularly illuminating. She warned that there was a danger in conceptualising what she and other authors are doing as ‘creating Australian literature’ (and Emily Maguire echoed these sentiments). The danger is that we fall into nationalism and all its ugly implications. She also led the audience upon another path: as a fall out of post-modern theory, books are not seen as things crafted by an author but as products of something that flows through an author, so that they appear but of something “ethereal and disembodied,” she said. And now, with the rise of university course-readers, students study “bits and pieces” of books. Well with the recent death of Jean Baudrillard (a friend told me that they are putting his ashes into the Seine, how pertinent as last time I was in Paris its river smelt like sewerage), and an exhaustion of postmodernism, lets hope that authors as people who carefully and beautifully craft their books are allowed to exist once more. And as readers we should read that work in its entirety.

John Hughes told us that the problem was not of literature but the reading of literature in general. There is too much pop culture taught and not enough of Chaucer and Beckett. Well, hurrah for readers! Australian literature is still being written and is being written very well. But Australian literature without readers is like a mortar with no pestle. One thing that I believe is missing is great Aussie readers. Where is our V.S. Pritchett, or Kenneth Rexroth, or Edmund Wilson? Someone who can throw a guiding light on what and who’s scribbling is truly illuminating our society’s darkness. Wilson not only introduced the American public to the modernist writers who were emerging out of Paris (see his wonderful book Axel’s Castle) but he rescued the reputations of fledging authors, primarily William Faulkner.

If you consider yourself a great Aussie reader (if you are feeling any cultural cringe race down your spine, just ignore it) then its time to read and read well AND promote what you think is important in Australian literature to your friends, to book clubs and perhaps put something’s online, call up a radio station or at the very least add it as a post to this blog. Australian literature is not doomed as long as us (I mean its readers) still read it. Does anyone know of any great Aussie readers that we should be keeping an eye out for? Or if you are a great Aussie reader, what and who should we be reading? Emily Maguire told us that “there is no set thing that is Australian literature.” And her novels are a great example. Urbane, sexy and cosmopolitan, and not a sheep dip in sight. Perhaps Australian literature is (like Australian society in general) undergoing a period of questioning and change. There is the Australia of the drought infected farmers, recent immigrants to the western suburbs of Sydney, the rioters of Cronulla and Macquarie Fields, the private schools kids of the Eastern Suburbs and the homeless who sleep on the footpaths of Kings Cross. If a writer was to emerge from here, which one would ‘capture’ Australia? That’s not the right question. The right question is, “Who is poetically capturing their own experience of Australia?” Again, I’m looking for great Aussie readers to tell me and others: who and what should we be reading?

One thing I must add as a current student at UTS and recent graduate of Sydney University is the general lifestyle of students today. Some students are too lazy to read lots of books cover to cover. But there is another dimension that we must uncover. In the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s students were paid to be at Uni and, perhaps more importantly, Sydney was still an affordable city. Now even with a small amount of Austudy or Youth Allowance, students still need to work a lot just to fund their studies (and still knowing that they will graduate in debt at the end of it all.) And that’s only if they can get Austudy or Youth Allowance. If you can’t get it, you need to work four days a week, attend classes two days a week and in the spare time that’s left try to do the readings. Is it any wonder why professors don’t assign five or six novels at roughly eight hundred pages per book? Students are unable to find the time to read such a dense work, and to read it with the concentrated attention required, after spending all day working office admin, selling jeans, waiting tables etc. Yes the demise of funding to the humanities is a huge problem. And most students would be happy to pay attention, but they have an eight hour shift to work tonight so they hope to deal with it later.

One very interesting piece of news emerged from the question time. Apparently Giramondo Publishing are publishing a list of forgotten Australian Classics. This is fascinating, does anybody have any more information about this?

PEN Asia-Pacific Conference

2007-03-08T15:57:00.000+11:00

The 2007 International PEN Asia and Pacific Regional Conference was held in Hong Kong from 2 February - 5 February earlier this year. The theme was 'Writers in the Chinese World: A Literary Exchange'. Click here to read the International PEN press release on the historic event.

Detained and Misrepresented: Australian Print Media Reports on Protests

2007-02-27T21:50:00.000+11:00

Recently in Australia the suppression of freedom of expression has been taking on different forms. In his recent blog article for Sydney PEN, Hugo Bowne-Anderson considered how the provisions concerning sedition under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 (No.2) (Cth) ambiguously limit the horizons of artistic production and freedom of expression in Australia. In this weeks blog Richard Renshaw continues the theme, arguing an individual’s right to protest is being stymied by the police and demonstrators' actions are being misrepresented by the media.

The International PEN Charter provides that:
“PEN stands for the principle of unhampered transmission of thought within each nation and among all nations, and members pledge themselves to oppose any form of suppression of freedom of expression in their country or their community.”

Later:
“PEN declares…[that] since freedom implies voluntary restraint, members pledge themselves to oppose such evils of a free press as mendacious publication, deliberate falsehood, and distortion of facts for political and personal ends."

Hugo Bowne-Anderson rightly says that the ambiguity over what is seditious under the Commonwealth law is a product of vague, abstract language used in the legislation. Quite often, governments use such language in legislation if they want to widen the power of that legislation without being explicit about the scope of that legislative power. Explicit legislative powers may not be provided by the government because such powers may be unpopular with the public. Consequently, at times the interests of a government are served by legislative power which is vague, (possibly) wide, and ambiguously implicit. The bar and the judiciary, in such instances, are therefore given more scope and power to interpret and determine the law in respect of its application to a particular case. What does this mean for freedom of expression in Australia? Well, as Bowne-Anderson notes, people begin to self-censor.

The expansion and public legitimation of Commonwealth legislative powers in respect of sedition and anti-terrorism subject matters has seemingly produced strange symptoms in the Australian, especially Sydney-based, print media. The symptoms which have come to light are specific to the area of reports on demonstrations in various newspapers. In this area of journalism the organisations of concern, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Daily Telegraph, and The Australian, have not been behaving as they should be: ie. they are failing to provide an objective and considered account of the facts. This change in the Australian media ecology has effectively denied demonstrators their freedom of expression. In these times, demonstrators not only face the physical suppression of their views by the various police forces, but also face the censorship and misrepresentation of their views and actions by the print media.

In this blog I would like to consider how four demonstrations have been variously reported over the last year in order to demonstrate how the ecology of the Australian print media has undergone change in recent history. The reported events of concern are:

i. Dora Tsavdaridis’s report for The Daily Telegraph (13/4/06 '24 arrests as student rally turns violent') and Anna Patty’s report for The Sydney Morning Herald on the Anti-VSU rally of April 12, 2006.

ii. Piers Akerman’s (17/3/06 'Impeded by protest against freedom') and Luke McIlveen’s (17/3/06 'Rice's tribute to the sacrifice of Aussies) respective reports for The Daily Telegraph on the protest against Condoleezza Rice at the University of Sydney on March 16, 2006.

iii. Ian Munro, Nassim Khadem, and Misha Schubert’s report for The Age on the protests against the G20 forum on November 18-19, 2006.

iv. Tracy Ong and Samantha Maiden’s report for The Australian and Edmund Tadros and David Braithwaite’s report for The Sydney Morning Herald on the protests against Dick Cheney in Sydney on February 22-23, 2007.

My analysis has unveiled 7 different symptoms which variously mark these specimens. I provide them as follows:

1. Print media reports usually lack facts which are necessary for the demonstrators’ side of the story to be adequately balanced against that of the police.

2. The reports also have the tendency of providing the wrong facts for, effectively, the benefit of the police’s side of story.

3. The demonstrators are usually portrayed as violent provokers of violence or as being anti-democratic agents.

4. Some reports portray demonstrators as characters in a burlesque.

5. The injuries suffered by the police are always reported, but the injuries suffered by demonstrators are usually not reported or, at most, such events are under-reported.

6. The right to be part of an apparently genuine demonstration or protest or procession (see s200 of LEPRA) , the lawful procedure of arrest (see ss87MA and 201 of LEPRA) , the reasonability of the use of force by the police against demonstrators (see ss230-231 of LEPRA) , and the general legal principle of the right to privacy are not considered as relevant issues in the reports of concern. In fact, these issues are not considered at all by the reports.

7. The reports of the demonstrations against VSU and Dick Cheney give primacy to the issue of traffic flows in the CBD at the expense of the right to demonstrate.

I invite you to read the relevant articles, and to consider and expand upon my analysis via the blog. Enjoy!

- Richard Renshaw is a member of the Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee

Related Links:

Demo against Condoleezza Rice - Melbourne Indymedia

Police seek to detain “28 people of interest” for interviews concerning the G20 protest - The Age

Police brutalise members of a demonstration taking place in the foyer of the Melbourne Museum - Melbourne Indymedia

Police brutalize members of a demo taking place outside the Victorian State Parliament 1 and 2 - Melbourne Indymedia

Sedition Legislation in Australia

2007-02-19T15:44:00.000+11:00

Welcome back to the Sydney PEN Blog for 2007! This year you can look forward to regular updates on writers in prison and detention here and abroad, censorship, translation, interviews with writers, artists and academics on freedom of expression and more. This week we start with a look at the Australian sedition laws, something PEN continues to follow very closely. This post forms part of a PEN Young Writers' Committee project to document the sedition legislation in an easily accessible way for writers, artists and the public at large. Hugo Bowne-Anderson, member of the PEN Young Writers Committee, begins our coverage with this discussion.

Sedition: 2. A concerted movement to overthrow an established government; a revolt, a rebellion, a mutiny. (Now rare) 3. Conduct or language inciting people to rebellion or a breach of public order. (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

As part of the "anti-terror legislation" package introduced in November 2005, already existing sedition laws were thoroughly revamped. The legislation is deliberately vague and almost any artist/journalist/citizen who speaks out in one way or another against governmental policy (this includes painting a peace sign on a mural) could be prosecuted. This is not to say they necessarily would be. However, that is not the point. The laws are so incredibly vague that one could interpret them in any fashion. Before explaining the laws, think about this for a second: David Marr reported that Philip Ruddock told the Herald the best guarantee against inappropriate use of the law was the attorney-general's personal role in approving sedition prosecutions.

The "modernised sedition laws" include:
- three that prohibit urging others to use force or violence against the government/Constitution/ lawful authority;
- two that prohibit assisting an enemy at war with Australia, even if a state of war has not been declared.

Think about the terms used here: urging and assisting. These terms are not defined in the Act. They are open for interpretation.

Example 1: Urging Australian soldiers in Iraq to throw down their arms may assist Iraqi insurgents. This is prosecutable under the new laws.

Example 2: Any work of art which Mr. Ruddock could interpret as being against this just war could assist our enemy. This is prosecutable under the new laws.

Example 3: Any work of art which Mr Ruddock could interpret as being against governmental policy could assist our enemy. This is prosecutable under the new laws.

The point: do not paint a peace sign anywhere. Do not publish and do not think.

Other changes to the legislation include:
- an increase of the maximum jail term from three years to seven years
- now intent need not be proven; recklessness is enough
- extension of laws to foreign citizens (which is absurd since sedition by definition is directed at one's motherland)
- extension of laws to extraterritorial actions.

This is for real.

The message is be afraid, be very afraid. Of course, these laws are not intended for practising artists, they are intended for Islamic fundamentalists. However, they are more than this: they are just another way for any authoritarian government to suppress dissent.

As a writer, as an artist, what is your function except to urge change, whether it be on a personal or political level? In this humble blogger's opinion, the most important art does both. In this sense, an artist's role is to be seditious. Most artists would see it as a badge of honour to be the first charged with sedition. This blogspot may now be seditious. Can you tell us, please, Mr Ruddock, in your humble opinion, is it?

Links for the interested:

- The Australian Law Reform Commission's President David Weisbrot on their inquiry into the legislation.:

- Senior Counsel Peter Gray's advice to Peter Garrett.:

- The legislation itself (see p.81 onwards). N.B. the legislation itself is even hard to find.

Penning Letters For Imprisoned Writers

2006-10-26T23:22:00.000+10:00

Every year, thousands of writers and journalists speak out on subjects like corruption, tyranny and discrimination with the belief that they can make a difference. But often these brave acts come at price, costing writers’ years of their life. Jack Durack is the Chair of Sydney PEN’s Writers in Prison Committee and says there are over one thousand writers on International PEN’s case list who are languishing in jails around the world. Bonny Symons-Brown spoke to Mr. Durack about the work of the Committee and the plight of imprisoned writers.

International PEN began in 1921 and started their first Writers in Prison Committee (WIPC) in 1960, almost 50 years ago. Having written thousands of letters to governments and authorities all over the world during this time, the collective PEN community has experienced both the joy and the heartbreak that comes with human and civil rights advocacy. Sometimes their letter-writing campaigns make a difference, but it is not uncommon for their requests to go unanswered and ignored.

Jack Durack is the Chairman of the Sydney PEN WIPC and says the letter writing campaigns “are part of International PEN’s longstanding commitment to intervening on behalf of writers who are oppressed all over the world.” Currently there are over 1,000 writers on International PEN’s case list with new cases being added weekly.

While Mr. Durack says Sydney PEN’s WIPC initially tried to respond to all the cases, with new requests coming every few days it became unpractical to deal with them all. Instead, Sydney WIPC now concentrates on the Asia-Pacific region and places where Australia has vested interests, e.g. Afghanistan.

“We think this is a more efficient way of operating and more likely to help these people than if we tried to look after people from Mozambique to Columbo to darkest Africa and most distance South-America,” says Mr. Durack.

The Sydney PEN Writers in Prison Committee consists of a core group of five members, each of whom is responsible for one particular geographical area. Mr. Durack oversees Afghanistan and Vietnam and says that under this system, “we become familiar with the writers who are in trouble, with the policies that are responsible for putting them in jail and we also become familiar with the offices in our own Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who will be prepared to intervene at our request or support our interventions.”

The WIPC had a recent victory with the release of Dr. Pham Hong Son, who was made an Honorary Member of Sydney PEN. Electing imprisoned writers as Honorary Members is one of PEN’s most successful strategies for raising their profile and sometimes winning their release. You can read more about the Honorary Members’ Program here.

Dr. Pham was arrested on 27 March 2002 on charges of espionage, related to his pro-democracy activities including using email to “translate and send anti-Party documents and anti-government documents” to colleagues abroad. On 18 June 2003 he was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment which was later reduced to eight years on appeal. Three of those years were to be served under house arrest. Dr. Pham’s prison term was due to expire on the 26th March 2007; however he was released early under a Presidential Amnesty to mark Vietnam’s National Day on 2nd September, 2006. He is still required to serve the three years house arrest.

“Pham Hong Son’s release was great but it’s not as if he didn’t serve most of his sentence – he did. And he’s still under house arrest so you might say that the campaigns are not very effective. However they also serve the purpose – and a number of writers’ who’ve ultimately been released from prison say this is incredibly important to them – of showing these writers they haven’t been forgotten. Some poor bastard who’s sitting in his cell in Cuba or Hanoi or wherever it might be, he knows (because the prison guards are likely to tell them) that there have been more letters written about him or her. I think that it’s an encouragement to them not to give up hope. It has that dual function,” says Mr. Durack.

During their time in prison, many of these writers have no contact with the outside world. Dr. Pham’s family travelled across Vietnam to see him but were refused upon arrival, and Derek Whitehead (Dr. Pham’s Sydney PEN representative) has no direct contact with him at all.

Jack Durack says that although they are political prisoners, these writers do not receive any better treatment than common prisoners. While serving their sentence – usually in squalid conditions – many of the writers suffer serious health issues, as Dr. Pham did.

Despite such punishment being inhumane, Mr. Durack says that the reason it is allowed to continue without international uproar is because of economic imperatives. “Most countries, including our own, regard maintaining good trade relations and perhaps foreign relations as more important than criticising another government for what appear to be human rights abuses. I think also there’s a feeling – and the Australian government might be as guilty of this as any other government – that if we criticise them they can feel entitled to criticise us, and there’s plenty of things we can be criticised for. We mightn’t be throwing writers in jail because they write about democracy but we do other things that are equally indefensible. It’s a combination of pragmatism and expedience.”

While the letter-writing campaigns may only make a difference in a limited number of cases, Mr. Durack says “that doesn’t mean its not worth attempting to do what you can and this is something that we know does sometimes work.

“The reward is in seeing someone get some benefit like Dr. Pham. We cant take anymore credit for it than that we’ve contributed to it, because Dr. Pham was also an Honorary Member of French PEN and Canadian PEN and the likelihood is that its all of our joint efforts that made a difference.”

Note: Along with their letter-writing campaigns, the WIPC holds an annual Day of the Imprisoned Writer (coming up soon!), and is also involved with International PEN’s action against the use of defamation laws to curb the critical activities of writers, both abroad and in Australia.

Photo Courtesty of EastSouthWestNorth

The Protection of Confidential Sources in Australia Part 3: International Context

2006-10-18T15:25:00.000+10:00

How do Australian privilege laws stack up in an international context? Bonny Symons-Brown concludes her three-part series on protection of confidential sources by looking at similar legislation in New Zealand, the UK and the USA.

New Zealand: When assessing Australian privilege laws in an international context, New Zealand law is commonly cited as realistic legislation to be emulated. The Western Australia Law Reform Commission released a paper on Professional Privilege for Confidential Communications in 1993 and found that “for reasons of clarity, the statutory discretion be based upon a similar working provision in the New Zealand Evidence Act.” Similarly, the Australia Press Council outlined their support for the New Zealand Act in their submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2005 regarding uniform evidence laws.

Under section 64 of New Zealand's Evidence Bill, "If a journalists has promised an informant not to disclose the informant's identity, neither the journalist nor his or her employer is compellable in a civil or criminal proceeding to answer any question or produce any document that would disclose the identity of the informant or enable that identity to be discovered." However, "A Judge of the High Court may order that subsection 1 (above) is not to apply if satisfied by a party to a civil or criminal proceeding that, having regard to the issues to be determined in that proceeding, the public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informant outweighs a. any likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informant or any other person; and b. the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the news media and, accordingly also, in the ability of the news media to access sources of facts."

United Kingdom: Under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (UK) “no court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that it is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or the prevention of disorder or crime”. According to Media Law experts John Burrows and Ursula Cheer, until New Zealand passed its extensive professional privilege reforms, UK law was significantly more generous to the media as it stated a rule of non-disclosure with limited exceptions based only on necessity. However this ‘firm rule’ has been eroded by the introduction of strict sedition laws which challenge the extent of ‘national interests’. Mike Holderness of the London Freeland Branch of the Nation Union of Journalists says, “UK law needs to be changed. The "ridiculous" Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 says that journalists can protect sources - "unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice". The trouble is that this can mean anything that the court wants it to mean. It was a last-minute amendment to the Act, argued in terms of a journalist knowing the identity of a murderer.” Holderness’ point is even more relevant in the present climate - it is not difficult to imagine the conditions in the Act could be stretched beyond their original intensions, particularly after the security crackdown bought about by the London bombings.

United States: In the USA, 31 states and the District of Columbia have enacted Shield Laws to protect journalists’ professional confidential privileges – these laws are not absolute, and like the UK, NZ and NSW, the laws do not supersede more compelling needs for disclosure. They are also inconsistent across the nation. Following the outcry after the 2005 convictions of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper for contempt there has been intense campaigning in support of national shield laws. Senators Dodd and Luger argued in USA Today that “the cases of Miller, Cooper and others make it clear that a federal shield law is needed to protect the public's right to know — which is the ultimate check on abuses by those in power.” The US also has a Constitutional amendment upholding the freedom of the press. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This constitutional guarantee has been upheld by the courts making it a significant legal defense.

When it comes to protecting confidential sources, the media must acknowledge there are in some instances, undeniable reasons for revelation to be justified. While absolute privilege is fraught with too many difficulties to be practical, no privilege for journalists’ confidential sources would certainly have a chilling effect on the media. A qualified privilege, in line with that of New Zealand is the most appropriate option to balance the competing interests of the public right to know.

Have Your Say: Which country has the best privilege laws?

The Protection of Confidential Sources in Australia Part 2: The Main Options

2006-10-12T18:03:00.000+10:00

When it comes to legislating on the sensitive subject of journalists' professional privilege, there are three main options: no privilege, absolute privilege and privilege qualified by structured discretion. In our second installment on the protection of confidential sources in Australia, Bonny Symons-Brown assesses the options.

No Privilege: this would assume that today’s laws satisfactorily address this issue. While journalists in NSW might receive some respite, in the rest of the country a lack of legal privilege for journalists’ sources equates to a chilling effect on the media. We will never know how many sources have failed to come forward with important information for fear of being revealed. Furthermore, as journalists are often nomadic people, profession privilege laws in Australia are unnecessarily inconsistent are should be standardised. The no privilege approach also fails to address issues like that raised in Barrass’s case (1989) where Perth journalist Tony Barrass received greater punishment for contempt than the defendant did when he was found guilty of breach of confidence.

Absolute Privilege: even before the legal implications of such legislation can be considered, the absolute privilege approach throws up one very big problem - one must first define a journalist. Unlike other professions that are afforded professional privilege (e.g. doctors, lawyers, priests), there is no standardised application/registration/qualification/membership process to become a journalist. Furthermore, as the 1994 Senate Standing Committee’s report on confidential sources noted, “the consequences of straying from proper standards in other occupations are much greater than is possible in relation to journalists.” While the report acknowledges the importance of reputation in the media, there are no official sanctions on journalists should they disregard their Code of Ethics. Under absolute protection, there is the potential for journalists to become lazy in their reporting, relying on confidential sources as primary informants (rather than corroborators) and even fabricating sources. Despite this, the Committee concluded that there was no evidence to support the notion that “a change in law will encourage fabrication where it would not have previously occurred”, and the need for journalists to attract their fellows respect was an adequate check on unscrupulous reporting. Journalists’ themselves would also need to adopt even more stringent controls of who they accept confidential information off, to avoid being duped.

The Australian Press Council is one advocate of absolute privilege. Submitting to the 2004 ALRC enquiry into the matter, they said “…the Press Council is of the view that it is important that formal recognition be given to the public interest in the protection of confidential relationships between journalists and their sources. One way of doing this is to ensure journalists cannot be compelled to disclose confidential information in court.”

Similarly Edward Spence, a morals philosopher in the School of Communication at Charles Sturt University, says “laws that punish those who seek to protect the public interest are misguided laws that should be changed. At the very least they ought to be modified to offer protection to journalists who are only doing their job as instructed by the compass of a public moral conscience."

Privilege Qualified by Structured Discretion: Proponents of this option generally agree that revealing a source must be essential to the issue of the case (e.g. establishing guilt or innocence, protecting national security) and must take into consideration the impact revelation will have on the source. At the time of the Senate Standing Committee’s report this option was supported by the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, The Nine Network, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and The Communications Law Centre, however the Committee found felt the accountability and upstanding reputation of the media need to be ensured before legislation could proceed. While NSW is the only jurisdiction to have adopted this recommendation, the Australian Law Reform Commission released their latest report on Uniform Evidence Law in February 2006 and stated “Given the support expressed for the New South Wales provision, the Commissions argued it was in the interests of consistency and uniformity for the Commonwealth Act to adopt the New South Wales confidential communications provisions. The Commissions further proposed that this privilege apply to pre-trial discovery and the production of documents in response to a subpoena and non-curial contexts such as search warrants and notices to produce documents, as well as court proceedings.” The MEAA Online reports that “it’s expected a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in December will approve a uniform framework of shield laws, with legislation adopting the plan to be enacted in 2007.”

Have Your Say: Which option do you think is best?

Check back soon for Part 3 where we will review similar legislation internationally.

PEN mourns the death of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya

2006-10-11T14:18:00.000+10:00

Sydney PEN would like to pay tribute to Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya and express our deepest condolences in this terrible time to her family, friends, colleagues and Russian PEN. Anna was found shot dead in the elevator of her apartment in Moscow on Saturday 7th October 2006.

In response to the shocking murder, Reporters Sans Frontieres has launched a petition demanding the creation of an international commission of inquiry "to put an end to the impunity enjoyed by those who murder journalists in Russia." Twenty-One journalists have been murdered in Russia since Vladimir Putin became President in 2000, according to RSF. None of these murders have been solved. Sign the petition here.

A journalist who covered the war in Chechnya, Politkovskaya had been receiving threats since 1999 after she wrote articles claiming that the Russian armed forces had committed human rights abuses in Chechnya. Despite these threats she continued to write and in 2003 published A Dirty War: A Russian Reporter in Chechnya. She is also a co-contributor to A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, published in 2003. Her most recent book, Putin's War: Life in A Failing Democracy is to be published in paperback in December this year. Politkovskaya was a guest of the Sydney Writers' Festival in May this year and featured on the Sydney PEN panel, "State of the Word", with Prof George Williams, Hari Kunzru, Camilla Gibb, Hendrik Hertzberg and chaired by Sydney PEN's Katherine Thomson.

In 2002 Politkovskaya was one of the few outsiders allowed into the Moscow theatre in an attempt to negotiate with Chechen rebels the release of hundreds of hostages. In 2004, she fell seriously ill as she attempted to fly to Beslan to cover the hostage crisis there, leading to speculation that she had been deliberately poisoned to stop her from reporting on the crisis.

"Anna Politkovskaya is a courageous writer known for her criticism not only of the Chechen war but also of the totalitarian backlash characterising the latest developments in Russia. Her death raises serious concerns and confirms all the fears," said Jiri Grusa, President of International PEN.

"We protest in the strongest terms the situation in Russia that has allowed this to occur."

A murder investigation is now under way. Vitaly Yaroshevsky, deputy editor of the newspaper Novaya Gazeta for which Politkovskaya worked is certain that her murder is linked to her work, a view shared by Russian human rights observers. The Moscow deputy prosecutor has also told the press of that the possible link between her death and her journalism will be investigated.

Politkovskaya was the winner of numerous international awards for her courage, including the 2004 Olaf Palme Award that was set up by the family of the murdered Swedish prime minister. The prize was given to Politkovskaya to honour her work for the "long battle for human rights in Russia".

"Anna Politkovskaya's integrity and courage inspired writers around the world as she reported on the most difficult situations in Russia," said Joanne Leedom-Ackerman, International Secretary of International PEN. "She was an outspoken advocate for human rights in PEN's and other forums around the globe. International PEN mourns her loss and calls for a relentless investigation to bring to justice those who are responsible for her murder."

A video of Anna Politkovskaya's Sydney Writers Festival session on Putin's Russia (28/5/2006) can be found here.

Click here to read Sydney PEN President Angela Bowne's SC tribute to Anna Politkovskaya, read at the Sydney PEN commemoration of the Day of the Imprisoned Writer on November 12.

Photo Courtesy of Sydney PEN

The Protection of Confidential Sources in Australia Part 1: Backgrounder

2006-10-09T00:36:00.000+10:00

There is no doubt that confidential sources are essential to journalism. Through the promise of confidentiality journalists obtain off-the-record information and disseminate it in the public domain, thereby fulfilling their role as watchdogs ensuring democratic accountability. Without this promise countless stories would go untold, ensuring an uninformed public and a profession little more than a public relations machine. Bonny Symons-Brown explores the current legal protections for journalists' confidential sources in Australia in this three-part series.

While press freedom is not enshrined in Australia's Constitution or in a Bill of Rights, Australian journalists’ are bound by their Code of Ethics which states "Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances." While the Code binds journalists morally and ethically, it is not recognised as legally binding in a court of law. This legal/moral inconsistency has led to a conflict of interest in the name of ‘the public right to know’: On one hand, the public has a vested interest in open justice and the right to fair trail, on the other they are concerned with the proliferation and free flow of information which keeps them informed.

As a result of this conflict Australian and international journalists have been charged, fined and jailed for refusing to name their confidential sources. While reform that allowed journalists to reveal sources at their discretion would have its benefits, absolute privilege is not without problems.

Journalists' professional privilege does not receive consistent treatment under Australian law. Before 1989 journalists’ interests seldom came into conflict with the court. Judges exercised discretion when dealing with confidential sources and out-of-court settlement was common. When cases were contested some newspapers even resorted to giving up possible defamation defenses in order to keep sources confidential. In Cojuangco’s case (1988), the Sydney Morning Herald kept their journalist out of the witness box in order to avoid questions regarding his confidential source but in doing so scarified a possible qualified privilege defamation defence. After a spate of high-profile cases involving confidential sources, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs launched an enquiry into “the rights and obligations of the media, with particular reference to (b) the need for journalists to protect the identity of their sources of information." The Committee found “the goaling (sic) or fining of journalists acting according to their conscience has demonstrated that the current law has failed to adequately deal with and guide the balancing of the demands of the public interest in a fearless press serving the community’s right to freedom of communication and the demands of the public interest in the proper administration of justice."

Their report, released in 1994 was a turning point for this area of reform. The following year the Commonwealth and the New South Wales governments acted upon the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and adopted almost identical Evidence Acts 1995 (Cth) and (NSW) which address the notion of professional privilege. The same year the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General announced their support for such uniform legislation to be adopted across Australia. In 2001 Tasmania passed essentially identical legislation, as did Norfolk Island in 2004. Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have all put the uniform Evidence Act on the legislative agenda and in the ACT the Commonwealth Act applies by agreement. South Australian law was amended in 1999 to provide more protection for professional confidentiality; however no provisions directly applicable to journalists’ were introduced.

To the detriment of uniformity but the benefit of journalists, NSW further amended its Evidence Act in 1997 and is now the only jurisdiction with a Professional Confidential Relationships Privilege. This is a qualified privilege that allows judicial discretion when deciding whether or not to compel a journalist to reveal their source. If a court finds that disclosure of the sources identity would result in their likely harm, and that harm outweighs the desirability of the evidence being revealed, they must not order the confidential communication be revealed.

In July 2004 these reforms were reassessed by the ALRC (in conjunction with NSW and VIC Law Reform Commissions) and privilege was again at issue. "The Commissions recommend that a modified version of the NSW provisions, which extend a qualified privilege to such communications, be adopted." So far these recommendations have not been implemented, but their mere existence is certainly encouraging for the Australian media.

Have Your Say: Is the current situation satisfactory? Even if all states and territories adopt provisions like that of NSW, will they go far enough?

Check back soon for Part 2 where we assess the main options for reform.

Image copyright of Hasbro Inc.

Literary Translation in Australia Today

2006-10-03T11:10:00.000+10:00

International PEN will be presenting their report, Translation and Globalisation, to the United Nations this month. The report, based on studies carried out by approximately 13 PEN centres worldwide, examines the status of literary translation in a global context. But what is the state of literary translation in Australia? Katja Gaskell talks to the chief respondent of the report for Sydney PEN, Barbara McGilvray, to find out.

"There's a lack of importance placed on literary translation in Australia," explains Barbara who has translated more than 25 books from Italian into English as well as numerous academic papers and essays. "People don't think about it. It's not a misconception; it's just that people don't think that when they read Dostoevsky for example, that it wasn't originally written in English."

The report does not paint a rosy picture of the state of literary translation in Australia and Barbara admits that even finding information on translators and translated works to include in the study was challenging. There is no information pertaining to the percentage of books published in Australia annually that are translations of foreign literary works into English nor is there any information available on the number of professional literary translators working in Australia today. As a result Sydney PEN are planning to compile and collate such information so that it will be available in the future and over the next five years, International PEN plan to devote funding to promote the translation of literary works.

But why is there such little regard for translators and translated literary works in Australia? Barbara believes the answer lies in Australia's history.

"Translation started off here because of a need," explains Barbara. "Translating things such as legal papers, medical documents and such for immigrants, that's how the industry started here. And it's (translation) is still kind of put in a welfare slot, even now 30 years later, it's held in very low esteem."

According to Barbara, many translators today still rely on legal and health translation work for their bread and butter.

"Things are turning round a bit now," says Barbara. "And with globalisation, business provides more translation opportunities. But literary translation remains in a small corner of its own."

Sydney PEN is hoping that their contribution to the International PEN report will help raise awareness more than anything.

"Because without literary translation we're missing out on so much," says Barbara. "If there had been no translation then we wouldn't have read Proust, Dante or Dostoevsky. There's so many culture treasures, so many literatures we don't know and cultures we don't understand because they're not translated."

In addition to work with the Sydney PEN translation committee, in the last few years Barbara has been waging a personal campaign to ensure that translators receive the recognition they deserve.

"I keep an eye on the reviews in the papers and if a translator is not mentioned or it's not mentioned that the book is a translation then I write to the editor," explains Barbara. "There usually follows a burst of names before it goes quiet again."

Another problem lies with publishing houses which, according to Barbara, are reluctant to pay for translation rights to a literary work that they don't trust will sell or will only use a translator with a reputation in order to increase its marketability.

"Which means that if you translate a work on spec," explains Barbara. "Then it's almost impossible to find a publisher."

However, despite the difficulties faced by translators worldwide to make a living, Barbara does highlight some Australian success stories that provide inspiration, most notably Mabel Lee who translated the Chinese novel Soul Mountain by Gao Xingjian.

"She's a great role model," says Barbara. "She spent ten years translating Soul Mountain and then managed to get it published. Just after if was published; the writer won the Nobel Prize for Literature and in the end it was the only English version of the Nobel winning work."

Of course every translator hopes for that "big, magnificent literary work" says Barbara. And Mabel Lee just happened to meet Gao Xingjian in Paris and he didn't have an English translator at the time. Nevertheless, her success and the publishing company, Wild Peony Press, that she subsequently established that specialises in English-language publications on Asia, serves as shining example of what is possible.

NSW Council for Civil Liberties challenges book bans

2006-09-26T14:15:00.000+10:00

The censorship debate is in the spotlight after the recent banning of two 'Islamic hate books' in Australia. The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties is contesting the ban in the Federal Court. Bonny Symons-Brown speaks to NSWCCL Secretary Stephen Blanks about the issue.

In July 2006, the Classification Review Board released its finding that two of the eight so-called ‘Books of Hate’ would be refused classification. The decision has fuelled free speech debate which has been simmering since the introduction of tough new sedition laws last year.

The books, Defence of the Muslims Lands and Join the Caravan, were originally classified as unrestricted by the Classification Board and were also cleared by the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Their review came after an application by the Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, who under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 is entitled to make an application for a review at any time. Interested parties can then make their own submissions on the matter, and you can read the NSWCCL's here.

While the books were cleared by a number of authorities, Stephen Blanks says he has “no problem with the regime where the Attorney-General is able to make an application to a review board – an independent review board – for an independent review.”

However in February 2006, the Attorney-General announced that the Classification Board and the Review Board would be separated from the Office of Film and Literature Classification – an independent body – and instead would be “serviced by a secretariat from the Attorney-General’s Department.” Furthermore, the “OFLC’s policy and administrative functions will be folded into the Attorney-General’s Department,” according to a media release published on the Attorney-General’s website.

“I think that is a matter of grave concern because one of the valuable aspects of the way in which those boards are constituted is that they are independent of the government and they’re perceived to be independent. When you have a system which is not independent, the danger is that you have censorship for purely political reasons,” says Mr. Blanks.

In 1986, The Sydney Morning Herald reported outgoing chief film censor, Janet Strickland, as suggesting that by the mid 1990’s censorship would be stronger than it had been for three decades. In 1996, Strickland was quoted as saying “I think that’s exactly what has happened. And it’s speeding up. It’s going to get worse. God knows what kind of society we’ll be living in in 10 years’ time.”

In 2006 Mr. Blanks believes we are only just entering this phase of stringent censorship, and says the proposed tightening of Australia’s censorship laws are, “part of a political campaign to continue a climate of fear amongst the general population, so that the population is accepting extraordinary limits on their freedom which the government is imposing.”

Representing the NSWCCL in the Federal Court, Mr. Blanks says adults should be able to see, hear and read what they wish. But there are times when he believes censorship is appropriate, and says the guideline – that works which promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence can be censored – is a “legitimate exception if properly understood.” In relation to the two banned books, Mr. Blanks does not believe this has been the case.

The NSWCCL Federal Court challenge commenced on the 7th August 2006 and will be heard on the 28th November. Mr. Blanks says in the last few days an issue has arisen “in relation to some legal advice which was given by the Australian Government Solicitor to the Classification Review Board and the Board is claiming legal professional privilege over that advice.” The nature of the withheld information is not known and a challenge to the Board’s claim will be heard on the 29th September.

Young Writers Committee

2006-09-21T15:35:00.000+10:00

September saw the launch of Sydney PEN's latest initiative, the Young Writers Committee. Established to support and encourage young and aspiring writers, this group has big plans for the future. Katja Gaskell talks to the newly-appointed Chair, Jeff Errington, to find out what they are.

"The aim is to build a solid group of keen people who are interested in writers' freedoms and writing," explains Jeff. "Writing is such a solitary pursuit so it's good to have a forum rather than randomly meeting to talk shop together."

Jeff should know. Aged 25 he is accustomed to working by himself having already written a handful of short stories and a novel. Not surprisingly, he's excited about the opportunities that the committee can bring.

"There are forums for young writers in Melbourne but not Sydney," explains Jeff. "We hope to slowly build events and readings, and it would be great if we could get some publications happening although that comes down to finances."

"We'll recruit, brainstorm and then see what happens," he adds.

Jeff also hopes that the committee will collate information on relevant competitions, publishing outlets and magazines thereby establishing a support network for young writers.

"All the information is pretty disparate at the moment," he explains.

And in the long term, the committee could prove to be a powerful way to promote works by young Australians.

But first they need members.

"We've got the National Young Writers Festival coming up and we hope to get lots of people signed up then," says Jeff. "And after that we'll recruit at grass roots level and try to get it to snowball."

The Young Writers Festival, which is taking place as part of the This Is Not Art festival in Newcastle from 28 September to 2 October will feature a session presented by Sydney PEN and Jeff hopes that the audience will want to sign up to the young writers committee.

"Hopefully the committee will give writers direction," says Jeff. "And also a sense of fraternity with other writers. Orhan Pamuk in a PEN address on the freedom to write said 'when another writer in another house is not free, no writer is free'."

For more information on the Young Writers Committee email sydney@pen.org.au.

Lost in Translation...

2006-09-20T10:56:00.000+10:00

Following on from the interview with Chip Rolley of the Sydney PEN Translation Committee, here are a couple of interesting articles on the dangers of not translating foreign literary works into English. The first article, Lost in Translation: The Narrowing of the American Mind by KA Dilday is an in depth look at the importance of understanding cultures through literary works. The second article, The Insularity of English by Stephen Henighan, examines the relationship between literary translation and the prevailing political climate. Both are well worth a read.

Translation and Globalisation : A report for the UN

2006-09-19T17:33:00.000+10:00

In October 2006, International PEN will present a report on literary translation, Translation and Globalisation, to the United Nations. Both Sydney PEN and Melbourne PEN have contributed findings on the state of literary translation in Australia today. Katja Gaskell talks to Sydney PEN Translation Committee Chair, Chip Rolley, about the Australian report.

"The report is based on some disturbing statistics, a minimal two to three per cent of books published in the US and the UK are translations of works from other languages," explains Chip Rolley. "Given that the US and UK are the dominant Anglophone countries, it gives you a pretty good idea of what we're being exposed to here in Australia."

The report that International PEN will present before the UN is a combined effort by 12 to 13 PEN centres worldwide to examine the state of literary translation on a national and international scale. The core of the report, however, deals with the lack of translation of foreign literary works into English globally. And it doesn't paint a particularly rosy picture.

"If you compare it to Turkey, 40 per cent of all books published there are books from other languages," explains Chip. "You might expect this because it's a smaller country and how many people actually speak Turkish. But it does give a sense of what's happening in the English-speaking world."

From an international perspective, Sydney PEN hopes that the report's findings will highlight the worryingly low number of foreign works being translated into English at this time of globalisation. On a national level, the translation committee hope that the report will raise awareness to the lack of foreign literary translation by Australian translators and put pressure on the Government for funding.

"The Australian Council has a good track record of getting Australian literature translated into other languages around the world," says Chip. We need to support Australian translators getting funding to translate and publish works here."

"A lot of the translation that gets published (in Australia) is imported from the US or UK so the translators here are not getting work," he continues. "Translators are a great cultural asset for Australia."

The Sydney PEN Translation Committee are dedicated to fighting the corner of the Australian translator. A lack of funding and sometimes even a lack of recognition means that it's a struggle for translators to make a living.

"It's not as if we're making people rich with the kind of funding we're talking about," says Chip. "It's a struggle; it's a big commitment to be a translator. It's not just a matter of being able to speak two languages and hey presto."

One of the ways in which Sydney PEN supports translation is through the NSW Premier's Translation Prize and accompanying PEN Medallion. The biennial prize was proposed by Sydney PEN and is offered by the NSW Government through Arts NSW and the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural NSW. Entrants are judged on a body of work and the prize is offered only to "Australian translators who translate works into English from other languages".

The committee also campaigns to ensure that translators get the recognition they deserve.

"Sometimes translators don't even get credited," explains Chip. "We want to make sure that when a book is reviewed, the translator gets noted. It would read completely differently if someone else had translated it."

The drive for greater translation of foreign literary works is not just about providing work and accreditation to Australian translators however. It's imperative that there is greater access to foreign works if we're to better understand the world in which we live.

"In the age of terrorism that we live in, with increasing suspicion between cultures, it's time we do need a deeper understanding of cultures," says Chip. "And this can be gained by reading great literary works from other cultures."

SMH article on Sedition

2006-09-18T09:07:00.000+10:00

The Sydney Morning Herald published this article on Sedition last week that is worth reading. For the second time this year, the Australian Law Reform Commission called on Philip Ruddock to amend the sedition laws to "draw a bright line between freedom of expression - even when exercised in a challenging or unpopular manner - and the reach of the criminal law." So far, out of a recommended 30 amendments, the only one that Mr. Ruddock has shown signs of supporting is the plan to change the name 'sedition' for "something less emotive".

Banning Books

2006-09-12T22:04:00.000+10:00

Banning books is nothing new. Ever since people first started communicating there have been others who try to stop them. The only thing that has changed over time is the reasons for the censorship or outright ban on a piece of work. Whereas once books might have been banned for political, sexual, religious or social , these days literature is the target of would-be-censors for inciting violence.

In July 2006, the Australian Government banned two "radical" Islamic books, Defence of the Muslim Lands and Join the Caravan, they are the only Western country to have done so. These two books were part of a group of eight called the "Books of Hate" that Attorney-General Philip Ruddock wanted to ban. Defence of the Muslim Lands was found to promote and incite terrorism including encouraging martyrdom and Join the Caravan was said to encourage Muslims to engage in fighting. Both books are by a Palestinian-born Islamic radical, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, who was assassinated in 1989. Interestingly, in May 2006 the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions reported that the books did not breach either the Commonwealth Criminal Code of the NSW Crimes Act.

As something of an aside, while researching this topic I came across ten classics that were at one point in time banned, and though it would be interesting to discuss them here. Some of these might be obvious but others might be suprising. All of them, however, are now considered must-reads and a number of them are now on school curriculum's. One of the banned classics, Ulysses, is the focus of an essay by Miri Jassy in the Sydney PEN June 2006 Quarterly (pg 20).

Welcome to the SydneyPEN blog

2006-08-08T16:03:00.000+10:00

This is a blog where we want everyone to get involved. As part of the Sydney PEN organisation, we encourage everyone and anyone to participate in debates and conversations relating to freedom of expression and freedom from censorship in literature.

As part of International PEN, Sydney PEN exists to "emphasise the role of literature in the development of mutual understanding and world culture; to promote literature in a variety of ways, including by opposing restraints on freedom of expression and working to promote literacy itself; and to act as a powerful voice on behalf of writers harassed, imprisoned and sometimes killed for their views".

We will post regular topics for discussion including the proposed amendments by the Commonwealth to censorship legislation, the recent debate on the so-called 'Books of Hate', sedition laws and works of literature that have been banned worldwide and their authors imprisoned.

But we also want to encourage debates on the role of literature itself. As a tool for learning, understanding and even pure escapism, we want you to tell us about the books that matter to you and why!