Olympics human rights ads pulled: GetUp!

Advocacy group GetUp says they expect to be reimbursed for advertisements protesting human rights abuses in China that were stopped from going to air during the coverage of the Olympic opening ceremony.

The organisation says they paid Channel Seven to feature the ads before and after the event and were given approval to do so.

GetUp's Brett Solomon says he is extremely disappointed by the decision not to air the ads.

"This is really a slap in the face to all the people who put in small amounts of money to fund the advertisement and so I guess there's a range of options at this point," he said.

GetUp says it will continue to try to get mainstream coverage for the campaign but will now approach other commercial networks.

Related:

Summer Olympic Games Open in Beijing, Pro-Tibet Protester Deported to US


The eyes of the world are focused on China today as the Summer Olympic Games open in Beijing. One big question centers on whether the Olympic Committee and the Chinese government will allow any public protests during the Games. We speak with an activist who was arrested in China and deported after unfurling a Tibet independence banner close to the main Olympic stadium.

Athletes' letter condemns China on rights
Forty athletes taking part in the games have written an open letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao, expressing their concerns about Tibet. The signatories to the letter, which was sent to the International Herald Tribune newspaper, include Cuban hurdler Dayron Robles, Croatian world high jump champion Blanka Vlasic, and US 400 metres runner DeeDee Trotter.

Australia to sign up to anti-torture treaty
Things like the Death Penalty, Genocide, Water boarding, Rendition, Terror, False Flag Ops, Propaganda, War on Witches, State-Terror, Selling Human Body Parts of Executed Prisoners, Occupation of Sovereign Nation States, Pre-emptive Strikes on Sovereign Nation States, No Freedom After Speech, Killing Their Opposition Political Party Leaders and Media, Inhibiting or Killing Freedom of the Press, Inhibiting Internet Freedom, Conspiracy Theories, and Govenment Propaganda by Corporate Media etc...

Falun Gong's Olympic 'call for justice'
About 100 protesters from the Falun Gong have gathered in Sydney's CBD calling for greater scrutiny of China's labour camps during the Olympics. The Falun Gong say about 8,000 of their members in China have been arrested since December in crackdown leading up to the games.

Before the Olympics, 'Free Tibet'
A "Free Tibet" activist group will screen an advertisement urging Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to speak to the Chinese leadership about finding a solution for Tibet during his visit to the Olympics in Beijing.

American Foreign Policy Brought to You by China: Advisers to Obama, McCain Tied to US Multinationals that Profit from Beijing


President Bush is heading to China this week, where he will attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Summer Olympics on Friday. The Games’ presence in Beijing have helped spotlight opposition to China on a number of policies, including its repression of the Tibetan independence movement, its support for the Sudanese government in Darfur and its crackdown on dissidents and civil liberties at home. In the latest issue of Harper’s Magazine, Ken Silverstein says many of the bipartisan experts who have advocated so-called “constructive engagement” with China are tied to major US multinational corporations that profit heavily from the Chinese market.

Rudd to raise China Olympic censorship
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he will raise concerns with the Chinese Government about internet censorship during the Olympics. Chinese authorities are blocking sensitive websites used by the international media and are using spyware to monitor internet use in hotels used by journalists and other visitors to the Games.

China's human rights worse: Amnesty
Human rights group Amnesty International has released a scathing assessment of China's human rights record since it was awarded the right to host next month's Olympic Games seven years ago.

Reforms urged after sex attacks bungle

The Council for Civil Liberties says the wrongful detention of a man over a string of Sydney sexual assaults highlights the need for tight controls on what police can release to the media.

The 23-year-old went to police to clear himself on Saturday after he saw himself in CCTV pictures that were released to broadcasters and newspapers.

He was initially charged with stalking and assaulting six girls and refused bail, but was released two days later after forensic testing cleared him.

The girls, as young as 16, were assaulted by a man armed with a knife near bus shelters in western and north-western Sydney.

Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman says police need a court order to intercept phone calls and similar rules should apply before they publicly release images of possible suspects.

"A public splashing of your face is even more destructive to your reputation than listening in to your telephone calls," he said.

"That's why we say, particularly because of this incident, but this incident has brought to a head simmering problems in this area for a long time."

Related:

Joey's weekend of hell mistaken for a rapist
Joey De Mesa said... I have got records at work that show that I was at work but they didn't do any research. A 23-year-old man wrongly locked up on Sunday by police who suspected him of stalking and assaulting teenaged girls says he barely slept or ate while incarcerated.

Police watchdog 'leaks like a sieve'

The Victoria Police watchdog leaks like a sieve, according to former assistant commissioner Noel Ashby, who could face criminal charges following an Office of Police Integrity (OPI) inquiry.

He says a report in The Age newspaper on Wednesday was the first he knew he may be charged and it was typical of the OPI to release information through the media.

"We learn these things through the media and that seems to be almost typical (of the OPI)," Mr Ashby said.

"I think this is the fourth or fifth leak from the OPI.

"We've seen leaks about witnesses that they have or may not have, we've seen leaks about speculation of charges and now leaks about charges are imminent.

"In their investigation into us they were unable to make out unauthorised release of information - which they couldn't because there was none - but they seem to show a healthy disrespect, if today's report is correct, for proper legal process."

Mr Ashby, Police Association secretary Paul Mullett and former police media director Stephen Linnell face the threat of being charged with serious criminal offences, including perjury and misconduct in public office, following public corruption hearings last year.

Following the hearings, the OPI found Mr Mullett tipped off Detective Sergeant Peter Lalor that he was being secretly investigated for providing the address of male prostitute Shane Chartres-Abbott, who was later murdered.

The hearings exposed a chain of tapped telephone calls involving Mr Mullett, Mr Ashby and Mr Linnell.

Phone taps showed Mr Ashby and Mr Mullett exchanged office gossip and confidential information, while others involving Mr Ashby and Mr Linnell discussed operational matters including the Chartres-Abbott case.

As a result, Mr Linnell and Mr Ashby resigned and Mr Mullett was suspended from the force, although he remains in his Police Association position.

"We will fight any charges but we haven't been told anything," Mr Ashby said on Wednesday.

"We have some views on the true motives for this (OPI) inquiry and who knew about the inquiry in advance and what was influencing those people."

Sexual imagery banned in children's ads

Advertisements for kids' products must not include sexual imagery or imply that children are sexual beings, under changes to the national advertising code of conduct.

The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) has announced changes to the Advertising to Children Code, after considering 26 submissions from parental groups and health and government bodies.

Included in the changes are regulations which rule out the sexualisation of children - classed as anyone aged 14 or under - in advertising which is published or broadcast in any form.

The code says advertising to children must not include sexual imagery that breaches community standards, or imply that children are sexual beings.

Ads must also not state or imply that owning a product will enhance a child's sexuality.

AANA chair Ian Alwill said the changes would meet the expectations of the Australian community.

"The review has taken note of widespread community concerns, particularly around the sexualisation of children and the portrayal of body image, and we have responded accordingly," Mr Alwill said in a statement.

The changes come as a Senate inquiry, due to report by the end of June, investigates sources of premature sexualisation of children in mainstream media.

A broadening of the definition of alcohol also was included in the rule changes, to prevent any products associated with alcohol being advertised to children.

Another significant change to the code is a prohibition of ads that encourage children to pester their parents to buy a particular product.

Ads targeted at children must also not be placed in media unsuitable for kids.

Major food and beverage advertisers were currently working with international codes and nutrition guidelines to make sure ads directed at children aligned with industry standards, the AANA said.

The Advertising to Children Code is voluntary and compliance is self-regulated by advertisers.

Complaints were handled by the Advertising Standards Board and if an advertisement was found to have breached the code, it would be taken off air, an AANA spokesman said.

Lift the veil and show us what the jurors see?

"The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, sees some problems in all this. He points to the tension between the public's right to know and the community's "confidence in the administration of justice". If the media edits or selects bits of the evidence the reporting would be very bias and unfair"., [unless you trust corporate media that is? TRIAL BY MEDIA! or trial by a Jury?]

By Richard Ackland Brisbane Times

Widening the gene pool of juries by including lawyers and various categories of former criminals in the selection process is an important step in the shake-up of the justice system.

The recommendations from the NSW Law Reform Commission are a reminder that juries should as closely as possible reflect the wider community, so long as serving cabinet ministers are not empanelled. The commission is seeking to create a greater sense of engagement by the public with the court process and to break down the well established notion that courts are the play-thing of professionals and judges, with everyone else herded in and out as tiresome functionaries.

But to really get the public educated and interested in the process of justice the commission might have gone one extra step, even if that involved a tiny stretch of its terms of reference.

The step is this - why not release to the media, and thereby the public, the same material that the jury has been allowed to see as evidence and to release it on the very same day? There is no good reason for locking the public out of the court room. If a jury sees a piece of evidence it cannot be prejudicial to the case if the rest of the public sees it, too.

In England and Wales they have gone this extra step in the form of a protocol that has transformed the way the criminal courts are reported.

Essentially the prosecutors there release to the media transcripts, camera footage or other evidence on the day it is shown to the jury. It is seen on the TV news and newspaper websites that night.

This has had the effect of removing the idea that the rest of the community is on the sidelines when it comes to criminal trials.

It has also modernised the way cases are reported and removed the notion, at least for TV, that criminal trials are "visually restrictive".

Gone is the formulaic file footage showing the scales of justice and the reporter delivering from outside the court what had happened inside. The TV shots of barristers self-consciously striding down the street have given way to evidence as seen by the jury, such as CCTV footage of the accused, taped police records of interview, voice traffic on phones, footage taken by defendants on mobile phones, maps and models of the scene of the alleged crime and the transcript of the prosecution's opening address.

John Battle, an English lawyer and head of compliance at the Independent Television Network in London, was in Australia recently and gave some insights into just how all this works in Britain. He was a member of the group that helped negotiate the protocol.

Battle said that most of the police evidence would normally be disclosed to the public, but "sensitive" footage or photographs of the victim or other witnesses might only be released after consultation with those parties.

The important thing is that there is a procedure in place that makes most court room evidence available. The British public saw many images on a daily basis of material shown to the court in the case of the failed London bombing terrorism trial. This included footage of the moment one of the accused attempted to detonate a bomb on the Underground right next to a mother and child. In the Jean Charles de Menezes case footage was made public showing police officers running into an Underground station where the victim was shot in the mistaken belief he was a terrorist. In each instance the requests from the media for publication have to be approved by the police, prosecution, defence and the judge. Once that happens the material is posted on a police website for downloading by the media, and anyone else for that matter. Of course, this enlivens the media's coverage of what can be a dry and dusty criminal process, but Battle says that showing what happens "transforms the public understanding of the case". Sometimes judges in the sainted province of NSW have released to the media evidence heard in open court, but invariably it is after the jury has done its work and gone home.

This happened in the Kathleen Folbigg case, where her interview with the police was made public, and in the Sef Gonzales murder trial, where the triple-0 call was subsequently published. The point though is that here there is no system in place. If the evidence is put before the public, this is invariably the product of a piecemeal and inconsistent process.

The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, sees some problems in all this. He points to the tension between the public's right to know and the community's "confidence in the administration of justice". If the media edits or selects bits of the evidence the reporting may be unfair.

In any event, there have been no complaints with the way the protocol has worked in practice in Britain, and it surely cannot be beyond the wit of the Australian media and the court system to work something out here

TRIAL BY MEDIA! or trial by a Jury?
Once a person is charged there should be a media black ban on that case until a jury has found the person either guilty or not guilty. If the media have the power to elect our political parties then they also have the power to find people guilty. Especially people who are being tried over and over again. Now with no double jeopardy rules and majority verdicts in NSW then high profile cases have become susceptible to being tried by the media and not by the jury in my humble opinion.