Albert Langer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)

Albert Langer (also known as Arthur Dent^[1]) is an Australian political activist, best known for his 1996 conviction and gaoling on contempt charges after breaching an injunction forbidding his advocacy of marking electoral ballot papers in a way discouraged by the Australian Electoral Commission. As a result of his imprisonment Amnesty International declared him the first Australian prisoner of conscience for over 20 years.^[2]

1 Life and early activism
2 Conviction for political advocacy
3 Current political views
4 References
5 External links

[edit] Life and early activism

Born into a wealthy Jewish family in Melbourne, Langer was educated at Monash University, where he became a prominent student activist during the Vietnam War years. He was a leader of the Maoist faction at the university and a supporter of the Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist). He broke with this party after the death of Mao Zedong, but remained a defender of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.^{[citation needed]}. Langer is an active opponent of Zionism, and was associated with a group called Jews Against Zionism and Anti-Semitism (JAZA).^{[citation needed]} This group is no longer active.

[edit] Conviction for political advocacy

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (May 2007)

[edit] Advocacy of assigning equal last preferences

In 1986 Albert Langer wrote an article for a conference organised by the Coalition Against Poverty and Unemployment (CAPU) entitled Don't Vote. Its express aim was to examine possible electoral strategy for the left and to bring down the Labor government and to target ALP candidates in marginal seats. This tactic was adopted by members of CAPU and several low key campaigns were run during elections. In 1987 and 1990 there were instances where Victorian voters were urged to take advantage of section 270 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and give less preferred parties equal last preferences (now known as a Langer vote), so as not to express a choice for either major party.

[edit] Introduction of section 329A and challenge to constitutionality

As an antidote to these kind of electoral tactics, and to advocacy of voting informally, the ALP government formulated section 329A of the electoral act. It was enacted in December 1992. Section 329A made it an offense to encourage, during the election period, voters to fill in House of Representatives ballot papers other than in accordance with the method set out in section 240 of the Act. The offence was punishable by 6 months imprisonment or a discretionary pecuniary penalty. ^[3]

On 5 March 1993^{[citation needed]}, ahead of the 1993 election, Albert Langer received warnings from the Australian Electoral Commission not to run the campaign he had initiated. He sought relief from the High Court; to stop the AEC from intimidating him, and to determine the validity of section 329A. The matter was reviewed by Justice William Deane (who shortly afterwards became Governor General). Deane dismissed his injunction application, but referred the question to the full bench. The case was joined with a similar challenge by Patrick Muldowney to South Australian electoral matters to determine the validity of section 126. The matters were heard in Canberra in October 1995.

However, the decision was not publicly announced until 7 February 1996 - just after the writs for the 1996 election were issued on 28 January. That decision saw the Court reject (Dawson dissenting) Langer's argument that section 329A was unconstitutional. (Also argument put by legal practitioners) The case saw judges interpreting the Act to mean that it is necessary to cast one's vote using consecutive and unrepeated numbers.

On 31 January the Neither! campaign published a newspaper advertisement to which the AEC objected and took action against. The matter was adjourned pending the High Court decision, and on 8 February the AEC obtained an injunction from Justice Beach (Victorian Supreme Court to restrain Albert Langer from publishing the advertisement "How to vote for Neither!"

Langer was never prosecuted under section 329A. The Electoral Commission chose not to use the provision but rather sought the measure of injunctive relief.

[edit] Contempt charges

Langer was eventually charged with contempt after informing the media of the decision outside the courthouse and providing them with a copy of the Neither! leaflet. As such technically Langer did not breach the order as he did not hand the pamphlet to the public though it was only a matter of time until he did.

Within a few days of this decision (details to be provided) Langer was summoned to appear on the charge of contempt and it was members of the media who gave evidence of him passing leaflets to them. Consequently he was sentenced to 10 weeks imprisonment for breaching the court injunction ordering him to stop advocating 'contrary to the Electoral Act. In March 1996 after widespread public outcry and media attention the Federal Court reduced his sentence to three weeks, which he served in full.

During his incarceration, Albert Langer was deemed by Amnesty International to be a "Prisoner of Conscience."^[4]

[edit] Repeal of section 329A

The June 1997 report into the 1996 election by Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters discussed the Langer case and recommended the repeal of section 329A.^[5] Section 329A was repealed by the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1998, which became law on 17 July 1998. Section 240 was amended by the same Act to specify that using repeated numbers invalidated a vote.

[edit] Misconceptions

There are numerous myths which have been associated with this case including that Langer argued on grounds of political freedoms; that this decision was about upholding the integrity of a compulsory voting system; that Langer was charged under s329A; that this decision was about minimising informal votes. None of this is correct.

[edit] Current political views

In 2003 Langer surprised many by supporting the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Langer argued that Saddam Hussein was a fascist and that U.S. was waging a "revolutionary war of liberation" by overthrowing his regime.^{[citation needed]} Langer's current political views are summarised at the Last Superpower website, which he maintains with his ex-wife Kerry Langer:

The war in Iraq: We support the overthrow of the fascist Baath Party in Iraq. The United States currently has no choice but to "drain the swamps" and support the democratization of the Middle East.
Palestine: As a consequence of its new drain the swamps policy, the Bush administration has become the first ever US administration to acknowledge the need for a Palestinian state.
Globalization: globalization is the engine of development in the third world - and development is the answer to world poverty.
Green politics: We reject green ideology because it opposes rapid development, fears change and romanticises pre-industrial life. In practice, "sustainable development" sustains only poverty, malnutrion and death.
Capitalism: On the one hand capitalism is vastly superior to tribalism, feudalism and fascism. The achievements of advanced capitalism really are quite spectacular. Nevertheless it holds back development and progress because it is based on "wage slavery" and is therefore incapable of fully unleashing human potential.