Wil Wallace: Jacob Appelbaum Visits #OMEL (The Digest, 24/1/12)

During the 20^th Century many journalists sought to make careers by traveling to distant and dangerous locations to interview rebel leaders, tyrants and criminals for stories that would titillate their readers. In the 21^st century this has continued, though the development of digital technology and communications has brought changes: media can now operate with much greater flexibility, transmitting footage and text from even the most hostile environments; and the role of the citizen has become much more important to media creation.

Changes in technology and communications have also had their effect on society (Australian, Western and Global) and in the 21^st century the list of exciting and alluring interview targets has been expanded to include hackers, cyber criminals and hacktivists.

When mainstream journalists write of hackers and hacktivists the characters they create often fall into one of two stereotypes: the nervous, fidgety and suspicious kind who, if they can be coaxed out for a meet, are laconic and somewhat coy; and the young, cocky and flamboyant types who have prospered from their efforts (illegal and legal). Maybe, if you’re lucky, they interview the hacker brought back to earth by the law or their colleagues.

Jacob Appelbaum fits none of these categories: he is a very normal person. When he spoke at Occupy Melbourne it was almost as though he had materialised out of thin air; wearing his characteristic shirt, emblazoned with the slogan “Be the trouble you want to see in the world…”, and softly spoken his positive and inviting rhetoric drew in a crowd that swelled from a dozen or so people to over eighty near the end.

Appelbaum covered a range of topics: the state and wrongness of American surveillance of civilians and activists; the collaboration of Facebook with law enforcement agencies; the stockpiling and exploitation of personal data by intelligence agencies and online businesses alike; the need for Australia to recognise that Julian Assange is an Australian and that our government has done all but nothing to help him; and the unconfirmed admission by someone in the Australian telecommunications industry that the Australian government had established interception and monitoring rooms within telecommunications facilities, much like the NSA in the United States.

Appelbaum also spoke about Tor (the Onion router) and its applications for online communications by activists. He was quick to assure us that Tor was not 100 per cent safe and that doesn’t provide anything more than anonymity (which can be undone with sufficient resources and patience) but offered tips on how to minimise the possibility of identification while using Tor.

Possibly most importantly, and definitely most controversially (Hi NOSIC!), Appelbaum also called on Occupy Melbourne and other activist groups to actively work to expose Government spying on citizens, to infiltrate spying organisations to learn from them and to create change and to use the tactics being employed against activists against those doing the spying.

Appelbaum’s visit to Australia has been assisted in no small way by Senator Scott Ludlam who wrote a letter of recommendation to ensure Appelbaum’s entry into the country and who accompanied Appelbaum as a speaker at “War on the Internet” (click for videos of the event), a speaker and panel session hosted by the Melbourne Trades Hall on Internet security and surveillance. We thank them both for coming down to Occupy Melbourne.

Wil Wallace: In Support of Reform [Rather than Revolution] (Occupied Times of London, 20/1/12) #auspol #OLSX

Nearly every activist has a place for revolution in his or her political toolbox. Some treasure it as their most precious tool, constantly polishing it up and yearning for the day when it can be put to good use; others hide it away at the bottom of the deepest drawers and instead choosing to use strikes, lobbying or legislative change to achieve their ends.

The appeal is obvious: with the option of revolution we can dream of smashing the system, destroying the structures that confine us and rebuilding our society for the betterment of all its members. Yet revolution is an unwieldy tool and indiscriminate in its manner. As Godwin said, “Revolutions are the produce of passion, not of sober and tranquil reason.”

One might also suggest that for a revolution to provide a satisfactory result for all involved would require a level of unity and common purpose that is not usually found in human societies. It might be possible to unite the masses to depose a brutal dictator or an unfair polity but, when they come together afterwards to define the new state, the dream can too easily be destroyed by factionalism and ego.

In Australia there is not much of a culture of revolution: the few incidents that resemble anything close to revolution (the Rum Rebellion and the Eureka Stockade) came early in our history and are only celebrated and remembered by descendants of the original participants or those who view them as the stuff of legend. This is not to say that there haven’t been struggles or that Australians are totally apathetic; we have a long history of dissent and protest. Instead what it means is that we have found reform a more accessible and effective tool for effecting change.

Reform is a slow and painstaking process but the small steps it takes can help to direct cultural changes that will, in turn, drive further reform. Reform is useful for those who want to effect change because the process of gradual reform softens the blow of change – this is something the Right knows and has put to great use to support the 1%. The Big 4 banks (the major Australian banks) are also employing reform as a technique to trick consumers into accepting their extortionate business practices and in talking to people and reading what they have written online it is clear that the Big 4 are enjoying a lot of success in this endeavour.

For reform to be effective for the progressive cause we must take the reins and direct it in favour of the most disadvantaged and disaffected, rather than the 1%. We can make major reforms to address serious and immediate problems and we can chip away with smaller reform; either way we need to utilise the cultural change inspired by the Occupy movement to help the 99%.

Wil Wallace: Higher Student Fees Just Aren’t Feasible (The Punch, 13/1/12) #auspol

Wil Wallace: ‘Tis the Season of Bloody Useless Gifts (The Punch, 27/12/11) #auspol

Around this time last year my soon-to-be wife and I were finalising the preparations for our wedding. There are many questions that will be endlessly asked of newly-wed (or soon-to-be-wed) couples: How did you meet? How long have you known each other? Do the parents approve? But for me the worst question was “What do you want as a wedding present?” – and for two reasons.

Firstly, my wife and I had managed to inherit or buy most of the crockery, cutlery, cookware and linen that we needed to run our house in the early days of living together and by the time our wedding was drawing close we couldn’t think of anything else that we really needed.

The only suggestion I could make was for a new can-opener (ours had broken a few days after the wedding invites had gone out) and it was quite a challenge to convince people I was being serious.

After Long Thought: On Today’s Attack Against Sara

I have been trying to think of how to respond to this morning’s events in a fuller and more considered manner after the rushed unofficial response I published this morning.

The difficulty lies in a total inability to understand what happened today. I know what happened – the actions – I know the Council’s motivation for seeking to remove the tents. I don’t know why they chose to respond in the manner they did. And I don’t even mean this in the sense of “why won’t they just let us protest?” – I cannot understand why Council officers, shit, why Australian adults would think it appropriate to gang up on someone, cut their clothes off and leave them shamed and violated in a public park.

The language I use might seem strong but it is appropriate for what happened. While I would hesitate to call this morning’s attack a pack-rape, it is easily only a half step down from that. What else would you call it when someone is surrounded by armed and dominant people while others use weapons to cut off their clothing?

To say I am disappointed with the public response would be to oversimplify how I feel but it will do for now. It is beyond disheartening and disturbing to see people clamouring and salivating over the images of a young woman being attacked and to say that she deserved it and that she is making a “mockery of sexual assault” to be pursuing charges against those who attacked her.

Shouts of “get a job” rarely phase me and I learned long ago to ignore those who threatened or wished death upon me. But it is a different kind of cruelty that wishes for someone to be violated because of a mere difference of opinion.

I have not known Sara for long and I do not claim to know her well but her presence at Occupy Melbourne has been unavoidable and always welcome. Some time after joining Occupy Melbourne I discovered that Sara was considerably younger than I had thought: her maturity and capability had me believing that she was in her late 20s. I was amazed to discover that she was only 19 or 20 and it is a testament to her that she has garnered so much respect from Occupy Melbourne.

When I discovered that it was her who had been attacked by Council officers my stomach fell through my feet. That something so brutal had happened to someone so undeserving is one reason that I still cannot understand what happened.

I’m also in the unfortunate position of being the brother of a young woman who is in many ways similar to Sara: they are around the same age, they are both about the same size and build and both have long, red, curly hair. If I’m not paying attention it is easy for my brain to mistake Sara for my sister.

This is a major reason that I will not be hosting or posting the video of the attack on the Digest. Some articles that are referenced and linked may have the video but I do not feel comfortable promoting it. I would encourage you to watch at least the short video, as I have, to understand what happened but it not something I wish to dwell on, nor something that I ever want to see again.

Tomorrow the Digest is focussing on the women of Occupy Melbourne and the global Occupy Movement. This is not the lead-in that I hoped for (or that I even thought would happen) but I hope that the attack will put what is published tomorrow into greater context.

As will be explained tomorrow morning, I believe that men and women are equal as human beings and, other than physical differences, I do not believe there is any reason to treat women differently from men. I completely condemn those who target and victimise women solely for their existence as women.

To Sara I say: Solidarity. We will support you.

http://storyful.com/stories/1000015293

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-06/police-forcibly-remove-tent-costume-from-protester/3715344

“Disgruntled ALP Series”: Kevin Rudd #1

In June 2010 I remember being up late and seeing as story come through saying that Julia Gillard had just called a meeting with then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd with speculation abounding that the meeting was to issue a challenge for the leadership of the ALP. At first it seemed as though the coverage was little more than the usual page-filling twaddle that then, as now, plagued the Australian media but as the night went on it became clearer that it was legitimate.

As I said to my wife when discussing the prospect of a Gillard government: Gillard would either be the best thing to happen to the ALP or the very worst. As time has progressed it has become clear that it is the latter. But that is a story for another article.

I detest Kevin Rudd and have done so for a very long time. Rudd displays many of the personal traits that should never be trusted in politicians: duplicitousness, dishonesty, envy, pride and for someone who has a reputation as a schmoozer and for being quite bright he has a startling lack of charm, wit and imagination. As I found with Mike Rann when growing up in Adelaide, politicians who cultivate a good media personality often have the most to hide and use their “public image” to mask obscene legislative changes.

I think a lot of people have forgotten that the Kevin07 campaign was constantly criticised for being too similar to John Howard’s campaign with both Rudd and Howard being savaged for their lack of spine and policy announcements that were often little more than one or the other saying “me too!” to a press scrum. In the end I think that Howard only really lost because he started to be seen as desperate to hold on to the Prime Ministership at any cost; the announcement of an ETS promise and the refusal to commit to handing over the leadership to Peter Costello severely damaged his legitimacy in the eyes of the non-committed voters and after 11 years of one Prime Minister there was a feeling that we needed change.

For Rudd this was a perfect situation. The similarity in policy between Howard and Rudd and Rudd’s experience as a very senior public servant meant that it was harder to attack him as a typical economically clueless Laborite and with an excellent media/PR team he came across as a young, erudite and statesman-like figure who was kicking the old fuddy-duddy in the pants.

Comparisons have been made between Rudd and Gough Whitlam in the sense that many expected Rudd to pull Australia into the 21^st century in the same manner as Whitlam did for Australia and the 20^th century and also in terms of the high popularity experienced by both Prime Ministers but Rudd’s capacity to bring change and his popularity were both artificial.

The phrase that perhaps best defines the Rudd years is “means-tested”: the intervention, WorkChoices (now Fair Work), Centrelink payments, stimulus payments, tax breaks were all means tested in a much more stringent (read: invasive) manner. One might think it is reasonable to have means testing of payments but it is something born out of the moral judgement of poor relief in the 19^th century, it dehumanises and demoralises those who are tested and it creates the ridiculous situation whereby a couple with a combined income of more than $32,500 is seen as having sufficient income and thus is ineligible for study payments. When you consider that ex-NSW Premier Keneally asked the Gillard government to raise the threshold for the disaster relief levy because people earning $50,000 in Sydney were under such severe financial stress due to housing and living costs it puts the thresholds set by Centrelink into an all new light.

Much like Barack Obama, Rudd during his election campaign was seen as a beacon of hope, change and possibility but was quickly exposed as little more than a better-spoken version of those who had come before him. During his long honeymoon period one might have suggested that the light on the hill cast a halo around his head as it shone off his platinum hair; certainly his fans revered him as the saviour from Howard.

But, alas, the light on the hill turned out to have been stomped almost to extinction (My Friend the Chocolate Cake describes it as a dream no longer dreamt) and that light shining upon Rudd was one of his own creation. Where Chifley’s light was as an incandescent – bright, golden and hot – Rudd’s inspirational light was (is) like an energy efficient globe: dull and off-white, distorting the colours that had been so beautiful in Chifley’s light.

 “I try to think of the Labour movement, not as putting an extra sixpence into somebody’s pocket, or making somebody Prime Minister 
or Premier, but as a movement bringing something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of 
the people. We have a great objective – the light on the hill – which we aim to reach by working the betterment of mankind not only 
here but anywhere we may give a helping hand. 

If it were not for that, the Labour movement would not be worth fighting for.”

Ben Chifley, 1949.

Why I Am Not A Conservative

A little while ago Scott Day wrote about how people asked him why he was protesting when he looked like a “normal” person and gave a very good answer: to make Australia a nation made by the people, for the people and with honest prosperity. It got me thinking about why I protest.

Unlike a few of the others at Occupy Melbourne I’m more likely to be mistaken for a bikie than a hippy: a crew cut, thick silver necklace, dark glasses, work boots, a default facial expression many mistake for scowling and a heavy build.

My background might also suggest that I would more naturally tend towards a conservative worldview: other than being a young, white male I was raised in a middle class family, went to the best public schools up until year 9 at which point I transferred into one of the prestigious Adelaide boys’ schools and lived in a blue-ribbon suburb of a city that prides itself on its heritage as a non-penal settlement.

But, while this would be sufficient for the superficial to become enraged or at least confused at the suggestion I am not a registered Liberal voter, there are many other factors in my personal life that have made it plain to me that conservatism is not the way to live.

My family’s background is one particularly strong factor. Both of my parents are and were (my mother died a few years ago) from working/lower middle class families and associated themselves with the working class; my father is the son of a career tram/bus driver and a teacher and grew up in Newcastle; my mother was the daughter of a hotel night manager (killed on the job in 1968) and a nurse and grew up somewhere in Sydney (I’m not sure exactly where).

My father’s family has always been strongly involved in left wing politics and unionism and has always encouraged education (personal and as a career) because of its importance to personal enlightenment. I can’t say much about my mother’s family as I didn’t get the chance to learn much about them but from the work my mother did I gather that they can’t have been all that bad.

My mother completed her Diploma of Teaching in 1971 and immediately sought out positions in rural (i.e., Newcastle) or disadvantaged schools. I’m not sure of the exact details but I know that it was fairly early on that my mother noticed the exclusion of children with disabilities (particularly mentally handicapped children) and the absence of any real education for those children and decided to act upon it. By 1977, when only 27 years old, she had been made Director of the Integrated Special Education Preschool – Australia’s first inclusive preschool – and had created the first school holiday programs for intellectually disabled children in Australia.

In 1978 my mother was invited to move to South Australia by the Kindergarten Union in order to act as a curriculum advisor, a role that she continued in for special education, early childhood education and aboriginal education right up until she became too ill to work. She was also an academic and a prolific researcher until my sister and I were born (at which point she slowed down and completed a PhD).

Funnily enough, my mother and I did not get along very well but I have always appreciated and respected her work. From her I learned that it is not enough to notice a problem – you have to do something about it because you cannot rely on others to fix it. I also learned that there are truly tragic situations being lived in every day in Australia and even if you can’t do much to help, even the smallest acts of kindness can have a huge impact on those in need.

I have learned a lot from my father but I suppose one might say that it was a more subtle education. The work my mother did before she got ill was more obvious as it was her career and as a child I accompanied her to work during the holidays and sometimes to play music for the children at the kindergartens she worked for.

Much of what I have learned from my father has come from hours of talking. I suppose you could say that he has helped me to develop a political framework for understanding the world; the “why” you should help others rather than the “what” or “how” you should help others that my mother taught me. Our conversations have also been very helpful for keeping me grounded in a world where people would quite happily have your head in the clouds so they could flog you $450 hair straighteners* or 3D televisions or sneak 15 minutes of ads into each hour of television without you noticing. I’m fairly sure that he once explained that the reason he resigned from his job as State IT Director in a Commonwealth Public Service department was essentially because he didn’t like meetings, nor the people in them, and was more happy to be on the frontline actually doing something.

It took a while for me to notice it but my father taught me to treat pretty well every person I met with the basic respect that any person on the planet should deserve (the exception being ardent right-wingers, but more on that below). I don’t act or think in a racist or sexist manner because it never occurred to me that that would be an appropriate way to act. I also learned that you don’t have to hate someone just because you have a difference of opinion – something that is lost on many people, especially those trolling us at the moment. If they’re just going to attack you then there’s probably not much point trying but you have to at least give them the opportunity.

That basic assumption of equality is why I have specifically looked for volunteering opportunities to assist new migrants to Australia. Many in this country are willing to write off asylum-seekers, refugees and even plain immigrants to this country for whatever reason but frankly they’re just human beings like everyone else and deserve a fair go from their new countrymen. To me, hating someone who has had to escape their country to have even the smallest chance of survival or a decent life is a massive dick move.

So when people ask me why I’m not a conservative in spite of a middle class upbringing and private education I tell them it’s because I have no innate hatreds and that I was raised to recognise problems in the world and try to do something about it. My personal circumstances should mean that I am in a much better position to help those in need.

In Memoriam, Dr. Katherine Susannah Kenny (Wallace) 19/11/1950 – 3/7/2009

Unity

For those of you who I haven’t had the pleasure of talking to in person, I am an historian. I am currently working on a Doctorate on the history of industry and labour movements in the Geelong region (where I live) after completing an Honours thesis on the growth and development of the Australian Communist Party (ACP) between 1943 and 1945.

There is much that Occupy Melbourne can learn from the ACP and, if we don’t, we are doomed to the failure that that Party experienced.

A major theme of the ACP’s history in the 1940s was unity. After some confusion in the very early stages of the Second World War the Party declared itself in opposition to the war, in line with the policy of the Executive Committee of the Third Communist International (you may know it as the “ComIntern”). This was met with hostility from the Australian public, especially after the Soviet army’s campaigns in Poland and Finland. With the Party lacking public support, Prime Minister Menzies was able exploit war regulations to have the ACP banned.

The Party did continue to operate in illegality but certainly not with any of the efficacy or public support that it had enjoyed previously. Assets were taken. Contact was disrupted. It was a real struggle for survival.

The tide began to turn, however, after Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Indignation at Germany’s blatant attack on a neutral country and admiration of the Red Army’s fighting success had endeared the USSR to the Australian public and done much to dispel the scandal caused by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.Even though the ACP was still operating illegally there was a spike in support and membership so that when Dr. Evatt announced to Parliament that prohibition of the ACP had been lifted the Party emerged into the light with an active, enthusiastic and broad membership.

The period from December 1942 to about 1947 in the ACP’s history is of great importance to us in Occupy Melbourne. This period saw middle class membership in the Party grow to an extent that had never been seen before. It was a time when the Party was pursuing the United Front tactic, building rapport and collaborating with other labour groups and classes. Two major campaigns run by the Party in 1944 showed its growing strength: the ACP’s election fund drive raised over £2900 – the equivalent of $180,000 in 2010 – and the ‘Victory’ recruitment campaign later that year drew in an extra 3500 members.

By 1945 the Party had various subcommittees concerning traditionally middle-class issues and communities (such as the Communist Doctors who led a campaign against tuberculosis, diphtheria and whooping cough), was contesting and winning municipal elections around the country and had seen the first Communist Member of Parliament, Fred Paterson, elected to the Queensland lower house.

This success only slowed and then stopped in the wake of the Cold War, sustained attacks from Bob Menzies and a rigid and bureaucratic Party structure that stifled free discussion and dissent. As the Party shed members it lost contact with the Australian public, got caught up in its own rhetoric and moved down a radical path that destroyed any remaining sympathy from the “forgotten” people.

Occupy Melbourne, while strong, is not as strong as we could be, nor as strong as we need to be. We are a movement of consensus that moves forward through discussion. We represent the 99% and the 99% is made up of many people with many different philosophies and ideologies.

At the 17^th General Assembly yesterday an almighty argument blew up and for a short while it was like watching rabid dogs tearing in to each other. This is not how we operate. It is to our credit that we soon remembered that we are all on the same side and the anger was channelled into working together against our common enemies.

This will happen from time to time but we need to do as much as we can to prevent it. This is my suggestion.

At all times remember that we are working together in a common cause against greed, unfairness and inequality. Nearly everyone will have a different conception of how these issues are manifest and how they can be resolved. If there is a disagreement at a General Assembly or otherwise, concentrate on what you have in common with other occupiers, not what you disagree about.

More often than not you will find that you have more in common than you realise and a suitable outcome can be arranged.

Sometimes this will mean you have to swallow your pride.

Sometimes this will mean you have to hold your tongue.

Every time this will mean you have to regard your fellow occupiers with respect and humility.

Every time this will mean we can come to an agreement and later, when tempers have cooled, you can calmly discuss the points you disagree about and maybe find a way to resolve your differences. Sometimes a difference in opinion is only the result of a different perspective, sometimes it is because they haven’t taken on the same information that you have. Neither of these is a reason to attack (nor to hate) someone.

Never forget that the 99% comprises people who haven’t been able to or previously haven’t been interested in learning about some of the issues we are tackling. We need to embrace them, encourage them and accommodate them or else we will lose them forever.

We must look to the long-term so that we can move through the short-term together.

My First Visit to Court

It’s my first time in a courtroom. Well, that’s not entirely accurate. I’ve wandered through empty courtrooms and a few historical rooms that are no longer used but I have never attended a court in session.

I watch Crownies fairly regularly so the modern decor of this courtroom isn’t much of a surprise but I find it a little off just how quiet and still it is, even while people are addressing the Court.

A few years ago, when I still lived in Adelaide, I worked for a while as a magazine courier, ferrying hundreds of street magazines around the city on a trolley. Occasionally I would need to make deliveries to the Magistrates’ and Supreme Court buildings and I remember it being similarly quiet. One visit particularly sticks out in my mind.

It was late in the afternoon on a day when the weather was dreadful: grey, wet and cold. I had to make a delivery to the Magistrates’ Court and took the opportunity to pause on one of the upper floors for some relief from the weather outside. Some of you may have experienced one of those moments where you’ve reached the top of a mountain, witnessed an amazing sun rise or sunset or done something so life affirming that your brain shuts down and all you can think is “Fuck me. Living is pretty damned fine.” As I looked through the windows and out over Victoria Square I had the total opposite reaction.

The level I was on was totally deserted apart from myself and almost completely soundproofed from everything outside. Through the windows I could see people scrambling through the crowd to catch a bus, huddling under shelter to keep out of the rain and very few smiles. It was a lonely experience. The stillness of the room and the utter quietness made me feel as though there was no life in the building and since then I had been left with the impression that Courts were cold, inhospitable places.

This changed today.

As I said, the Court was quiet even when people were addressing the Court but it was a different kind of quiet. It was the quiet of a library or a study space, where the silence is the noise of concentration and consideration. I suppose that it was also the sound of the legal process at work: reading and deliberation.

This realisation stuck in my brain. What I had originally thought was empty and lifeless turned out to be quite active but operating so smoothly that you wouldn’t notice it unless you were in the middle of what was going on. I don’t know why but it has given me greater confidence in our bid to be heard in the Courts. Maybe the decision won’t come back in our favour but unlike the silence that comes back to us from City Hall, the silence of the Court is the sound of us being heard.

Lest We Forget

Australia spends two days each year in remembrance of wars previous and lives lost. For some these are days for the celebration of victories and the glorification of war in the most jingoistic manner possible. For others they are days of true sadness: because they have been touched by the loss of of friends or relatives; or because they recognise that death and destruction are the only guaranteed outcomes of war.

Remembrance Day is an occasion to mark the reaching of an armistice between the belligerents in the Great War (later known as the First World War). It has been said that Australia as a nation was born at Gallipoli amongst the blood, sand and jetsam that washed up along the shore.

Australia entered the Great War youthful and a little naïve but the brutality of the war and the shocking loss of life rocked Australia even more than the great depression of the 1890s and brought these qualities to an abrupt end. Those soldiers who had gone overseas and survived returned with the horrors of the battlefields seared into their memories and, in many cases, not in one piece. They found themselves in a country that had been sharply divided along the issue of conscription and duty and that had been left quieter due to the loss of so many young Australians.

Around Australia the high casualty rate created labour problems during and after the war and this was especially pronounced in country areas. All in all, more than 215,000 Australian men between 18 and 44 years of age were captured, wounded, killed or went missing at a time when Australia’s population was still below 5 million. To put this into context: Melbourne has a population of around 5 million people today. Imagine if over the next four years 60,000 Melburnians between 18 and 44 years of age suddenly died and another 150,000 had severe workplace injuries that would leave a large number permanently disabled. You can imagine the devastation this would cause Melbourne and its people.

Since 1918, Australia has become involved in several wars and conflicts, some with volunteer corps, some with conscripts and most with loss of life. On November 11th, Occupy Melbourne will remember all those who have fallen (regardless of state). I think we would do well to recall the Ode of Remembrance and to read it and think about it as mourning war and the fallen, not as a celebration.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them.

Resolution of the 16th General Assembly (Occupy Melbourne):

“Occupy Melbourne will hold one minute’s silence on November 11th for those who have died in all wars. They are a part of the 99%. We, the 99%, are against all wars and believe they are initiated by the 1%. We want the Australian Government to bring our troops home.”