Re: [-empyre-] Re: empyre Digest, Vol 15, Issue 2

Thanks Aliette,

I would like to just make a couple comments about the local/international
context of 'sedition' in the brief for this month on -empyre-.

Firstly, thank you to everyone who has posted comments - it is very helpful to
see what sort of issues are considered productive to this discussion.

It was never my intention to only focus on what is going on in Australian law,
and in the introduction it was put forth as part, but not all of the
topic. The
Anti-Terrorist bill is a response to global pressures that have emerged post
9/11 and as such, I think it is extremely important to consider the 'big

Personally, I would like to hear more from the invited guests. This is a
discussion that is aimed at opening up the issues surrounding sedition, not
only a focus on changes in Australian law.

Claire - perhaps you have some comments to make in the context of the CAE?


Quoting "Aliette G. Certhoux" <>:

 Dear friends,

Sorry of my awful Anglophone writing; as usually I apologize. You
have the FR version below to have a better translation from your

   Revolt / Faction / Insubordination / Revolt / Resistance/

All about the freedom of the critical thought and acts but at first
which is the context of our loosing freedom?

Quarrelling in these times so limit for our liberties, it is sad but understandable. The passion is all among these debates, here or somewhere else, when all the particular or collective liberties, and in all their particular or general frames, are led astray to the point that never the whole world at the same time was so avaricious of freedom: whether it is because of the faith, in front of the failure of materialist societies or of the overtaking of the post political economy, or because of the powers independent from the electoral project (must be elected at all costs) to mask misinforming regimes beyond their democratic facade.

Freedom of the thought and to represent it (texts, art performances
or other forms): the subject is dangerous and bitter but must be
faced, because it is vital. It is always a local subject dependent on
the way the national collective symbolic pacts of which were
strangely established and strangely ran in a common or exceptional
way in their self-history, but suddenly updated by changes of the
law, or actually under the influence of the world governance and\or
the actual US dominion, or still the last little imperialist objects
from the part of lobbies connected to local powers, as well in their
own countries as in their countries of intervention.

Forgive me if at the cost of the Australian sedition I propose, to
widen the debate on the bottom, our local definition which is the
opposite, inherited from the revolution of 1989, from republics, from
democracies and from European dictatorships, and from the resistance
against the Nazis.

"Sedition" for us French it sees its antonym in "insubordination". We
know of the seditious States or seditious armies - always the part of
the power. We know of insubordination always the side of the people
claiming his/her individual rights against the common law (then we
call it "revolt"), or his/her common laws against the sedition by the
power (then the insubordination is named "resistance").

But before advancing in the very subject, to avoid any
misunderstanding it is necessary to quote the event come explode in
the figure of Diasporas in Europe, since the beginning of the month,
which comes to weigh down subjectively the thematic proposed in
"sedition": In front of the triumphant election of Hamas with 73 % of
the expressed votes, in Palestine, it is the constitution of a double
mass in the European democratic citizenships between Moslems and not
Moslems (and in emerging countries occupied by the United States,
between global military power and local religious or symbolic
resistances), increased by the abuse of the European government to
have threatened Palestine of embargo: what establishes a
supplementary obvious intervention in Palestine, besides that the
agreements of Oslo put Palestine under the economic and institutional
authority of Israel, what gave no chance of autonomy and broke the
syncretism power of Fatah, its credibility, and its integrity.

I do not ask to the curators to let us discuss it here, it is
irrelevant; but treating the problem of the loss of the
intercontinental western liberties without reminding the current
confusion between straight ahead, revolt, insubordination, consensus
and faith, such as we undergo them in Europe under the blow of the
business wanted by Bush US Army in the Middle East and having
contributed to build Talibans against the Soviet citizens in
Afghanistan, seemed to me impossible.

Because American Patriot act which inspires all the security against
the legislation of freedom in the democratic countries of the world
is the current frame making the due pact of all the forces of the
NATO to US, in the name of the fight against the terrorism and
against the emigration, and bases itself on September 11th, 2001.

An evident xenophobia seizes Europe, whether it is under the cover of
security, or under the cover of the economic agreements of
Maastricht, whereas the powers contradictorily call it to the
community surges which in return accelerates civil divisions and the
loss of the consensus which legitimizes on the liberties to think.

We so attend situations totally beyond any international democratic
rule; respectful protocol of rules so local as international of the
democracy was not to credit first of all the refusal of Fatah to take
into account its electoral defeat, until create him as potentially
seditious to the eyes of people who did not want it any more, and to
humble a little more this one to reject the vote a priori, but to
wait for the proposition of Hamas to Fatah, and to notice in the act
even if it was exclusive or not exclusive, independently of the
credible hypotheses or the interpretations. Or misinforming or
partisan interpretations.

I do not value the majority vote which sometimes plebiscite to be
able to dictatorial, but I think that the difficult circumstances
made to the way of life of the Palestinian people logically had to
give some day a way of law to the most radical resistant communities,
even if as layman I regret the failure of Fatah which represented at
first the multicommon Palestinian society. So goes the war and its
obstinacy that it toughens the object of the fights; it was on this
mode of the nationalist communist liberations, and we notice that
it's the same of the religious radicalism involved in the war - by
the war which is made for it.

To end on this point, I content with quoting Haidar Eid, Palestinian
native of Naplouse, Marxist that we cannot qualify as religious
fundamentalist; exiled to study philosophy in the United States, he
exceeded with the end of his PHD the term of the possibility of his
legal return in Palestine, and he met as professor in human sciences
to the university of Soweto, the emergent university in young South
Africa in this time. He sent me by a friend this predictable text on
the question of freedom and of autonomy, regarding Gramsci and
Qatamesh notebooks of prison, that we published in criticalsecret #7
article " Divided reality " , in
2001, which seems to me of an exceptional relevance today. Haidar
Eid: alternative " Ahmed Qatamesh " Reformulating the, Palestinian
let us take snuff notebooks ", review and analysis "
(the text running in the page from left to right).

I have other more precise ideas on the device of the war, on the
questions of freedom as it is about democratic or republican
inheritances, and also about reasons for which maybe we forgot that
the most free States can make a mistake having called security in
default of established critical rights and to respect them... we have
to prevent the abnormalities such as we know them everywhere today.

But already let us see...


 Chers amis,

Sédition/ Faction/ Insoumission/ Révolte/ Résistance/

Se disputer en des temps aussi limites pour nos libertés, est triste, mais
compréhensible. La passion est de tous ces débats, ici ou ailleurs, quand
toutes les libertés particulières ou collectives, et dans tous leurs cadres
particuliers ou généraux, sont dévoyés au point que jamais le monde entier
en même temps n'a été aussi avare de liberté : que ce soit à cause de la
croyance, devant l'échec des sociétés matérialistes ou le dépassement de
l'économie politique, ou à cause des pouvoirs indépendants du projet
électoral (en dehors de devoir être élus à tout prix), pour masquer des
régimes désinformants au-delà de leur façade démocratique.

Liberté : le sujet est dangereux et âpre mais doit être affronté, car il est
vital. C'est toujours un sujet local dépendant de la façon dont les pactes
symboliques collectifs nationaux ont été singulièrement institués et se sont
singulièrement exécutés de façon courante ou exceptionnelle dans leur
histoire, soudain actualisés par des changements de droit ou de fait sous
l'effet de la gouvernance mondiale et/ou la domination américaine, ou encore
les dernières prétentions impérialistes des lobbies liés à des pouvoirs
locaux dans leurs propres pays ou dans leurs pays d'intervention.

Pardonnez-moi si aux dépens de la loi australienne je propose, pour élargir
le débat sur le fond, notre définition locale qui en est le contraire,
héritée de la révolution de 1989, des républiques, des démocraties et des
dictatures européennes, et de la résistance contre les nazis.

"Sédition" pour nous français voit son antonyme dans "insoumission". Nous
connaissons la sédition des Etats ou des armées factieux - toujours le côté
du pouvoir d'Etat ; et l'insoumission : toujours le côté du peuple
revendiquant ses droits individuels contre le droit commun (alors on appelle
cela "révolte"), ou ses droits communs contre la sédition du pouvoir (alors
l'insoumission se nomme "résistance").

Mais avant d'avancer dans le sujet lui-même, pour éviter tout malentendu il
faut citer l'événement venu exploser à la figure des diasporas en Europe,
depuis le début du mois, qui vient alourdir subjectivement et affectivement
le thème proposé de "sédition" : face à l'élection triomphante du Hamas avec
73% des votes exprimés, en Palestine, c'est la constitution d'une masse
double dans les citoyennetés démocratiques européennes entre musulmans et
non musulmans (et dans les pays émergents occupés par les Etats-Unis, entre
pouvoir militaire global et résistances religieuses ou symboliques locales),
accrue par l'abus du gouvernement européen d'avoir menacé la Palestine
d'embargo : ce qui constitue une ingérence manifeste supplémentaire en
Palestine, en outre que les accords d'Oslo l'aient mise de fait sous
l'autorité économique et institutionnelle d'Israël, ce qui ne donnait aucune
chance d'autonomie et a brisé la puissance synchrétique du Fatah, sa
crédibilité, et son intégrité.

Je ne demande pas aux curateurs de nous laisser en débattre ici, c'est hors
sujet ; mais traiter le problème de la perte des libertés occidentales
intercontinentales sans rappeler la confusion actuelle entre droit,
sédition, insoumission, consensus et croyance, tels que nous les subissons
en Europe sous le coup des affaires voulues par les américains au Moyen
Orient et après avoir contribué à édifier les Talibans contre les
Soviétiques en Afghanistan, me paraissait impossible.

Car le Patriot act américain qui inspire toute la législation sécuritaire
liberticide des pays démocratiques du monde actuel cadre le pacte
exigible de toutes les forces de l'OTAN par l'amérique des Bush, au
nom de la lutte contre
le terrorisme et contre l'émigration, et se fonde le 11 septembre 2001.

Une xénophobie évidente s'empare de l'Europe, que ce soit sous couvert de
sécurité, ou sous couvert des accords économiques de Maastritch,
tandis que les pouvoirs
contradictoirement en appellent aux sursauts communautaires... qui en retour
accélèrent des divisions civiques irréconciliables et la perte du
consensus légitime sur les libertés de penser.

On assiste ainsi à des situations totalement au-delà de toute règle
démocratique internationale, protocole respectueux des règles tant locales
qu'internationales de la démocratie n'était pas de créditer en premier lieu
le refus du Fatah de prendre en compte son échec électoral, jusqu'à le faire
apparaître comme potentiellement séditieux aux yeux d'un peuple qui n'en
voulait plus, et d'humilier un peu plus celui-ci de récuser son vote a
priori, mais d'attendre la proposition du Hamas au Fatah, et de constater à
l'acte même si elle était exclusive ou non exclusive, indépendamment des
hypothèses crédibles ou des interprétations désinformantes ou partisanes.

Je ne valorise pas le vote majoritaire qui parfois plebiscite des pouvoir
dictatoriaux, mais je pense que les circonstances difficiles faites
au mode de
vie du peuple palestinien devaient logiquement donner un jour ou l'autre
voie de droit aux communautés résistantes les plus radicales, même si en
tant que laïque je déplore l'échec du Fatah qui représentait d'abord le synchrétisme
palestinien. Ainsi va la guerre et sa persistance qu'elle radicalise l'objet
des luttes ; il en a été sur ce mode des libérations communistes
nationalistes, et on constate qu'il en est de même du radicalisme religieux
impliqué dans la guerre - par la guerre qui lui est faite.

Pour conclure sur ce point, je me contente de citer Haidar Eid,
Palestinien originaire de Naplouse, marxiste que l'on ne peut
qualifier d'intégriste religieux ; expatrié pour faire ses études de
philosophie aux Etats-Unis, il dépassa au terme de son PHD l'échéance
de la possibilité de son retour légal en Palestine, et se retrouva
professeur en sciences humaines à l'université de Soweto, université alors
émergente en Afrique du Sud. Il m'a fait parvenir par une amie ce texte
prédictible que nous avons publié dans criticalsecret #7 "Divided reality" en 2001, qui me semble d'une pertinence
exceptionnelle aujourd'hui. Haidar Eid: " Ahmed Qatamesh « Reformulating the
alternative, palestinian prisons notebooks », review and analysis " (dérouler la page de
gauche à droite).

J'ai d'autres idées plus précises sur le dispositif décontextualisé
de la guerre, sur les questions de liberté selon qu'il s'agisse
d'héritages démocratiques ou républicains, et aussi des raisons pour
lesquelles peut-être on ait oublié que les Etats les plus libres
pouvant se tromper doivent commencer par préserver ou instituer les
droits critiques et les respecter : pour empêcher les déviations
telles que nous les connaissons partout aujourd'hui.

Mais voyons déjà...

----- Original Message ----- From: "Gianni Wise" <>
To: "soft_skinned_space" <>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Re: empyre Digest, Vol 15, Issue 2

Personally I welcome the discussion on anti sedition laws both from a
global and local perspective. We (in Australia) can only gain from
sharing histories of,  politicalisation of, and strategies on  sedition -
and given that the major justifications/ argument for the  introduction of
this law was the hysteria generated by conservative  politics in the US,
then we need to look at any discussion on anti  sedition laws globally.
Nothing like this occurs in isolation. Great  points Linda.

On 06/02/2006, at 8:37 PM, linda carroli wrote:

it bothers me that the borders are evoked so easily and that the f- word
(foreigners) rolls so easily from the fingertips as an  accusation of
'not having the right kind of knowledge'. at the  core, some of these
issues are human rights issues and have broader  implications for all
western democracies than just the specific  sedition laws. they are
international or global issues. i think  many people on this list will
bring the australian knowledge to  this discussion.

i support the choices tracey has made and don't think she should be
expected to apologise for her selection of guests. i also welcome  the
comments all those guests have to make ... this is an online  discussion
list and its nature is not one of experts and non- experts nor is it
necessarily one of foreigners and nationals. it  has never been the case
that this list lauds experts in this  manner. the guests are simply
people with something to say and what  they have to say is supposed to be
a springboard for other  discussion. i also wholly appreciate the efforts
tracey and other  volunteer moderators are making to tease out and
broaden the  discussion about these issues in this environment
particularly in  relation to human rights. this has become an
international list and  i'd welcome hearing about the breadth of
experience and knowledge  regarding the extent of these corruptions of
liberal democracy in  this world and, as tracey identifies, the culture
of fear which  seems to stop people from talking about it ... cheers.

At 07:15 PM 6/02/2006, wrote:

<Hi blakkbyrd,

<I am responsible for putting together the list of guest this  month
understand where you are coming from.

I dont think you do. I think it is extremely insulting to the  members
this discussion list that you can bring in two foreigners as
on Australian legal issues.  How patronising can you get?

There is no intention to be patronising here - and I apologise to list members who feel this way... my only intention was to open up a discussion about a topic that has serious implications for cultural producers locally and globally

A number of people from the organisations you mentioned were  invited
to be
guests but did not commit to the discussion.

Why not? Are they concerned about making public statements  regarding
new legislation?

Yes - I do believe this could have been a reason why some of the intended guests did not commit..

I know that as a moderator I should try and remain impartial (and  I
will attempt
to do this) BUT I personally can not subscribe to this culture of  fear
that has
emerged so swiftly and silently...If this is what is happening??  Or
maybe I
have just lived in my Canberra bubble for too long??


_______________________________________________ empyre forum

_______________________________________________ empyre forum

empyre forum
empyre forum

empyre forum

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.