Australia must end its detention centre shame

Date
May 27, 2014


Trevor Grant
The federal Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, has the power to release Asio-rejected refugees, under some form of control order.

Amid the gloomy confines of the Broadmeadows detention centre in Melbourne, there was a rare outbreak of joy last week. One of the ASIO-rejected refugees, 'Sasi', had been told that after being incarcerated for four and a half years, his assessment had suddenly been overturned and he was to be released.

Before he left the centre last Wednesday, they gave him a bouquet of flowers and held a going-away party. Inmates, guards and visiting friends joined the celebration. Everyone was happy for Sasi, who had been one of the first Tamil refugee victims of a negative ASIO assessment and a government policy of indefinite detention that has been condemned by the UN as cruel, inhumane, degrading and illegal.

Another victim of this policy, 42-year-old Deva, was as pleased for Sasi as the other 44 ASIO-rejected refugees detained indefinitely in Australian detention camps. However, the moment the fun had died down, he soon drifted back into despair as he contemplated his own miserable situation, locked away since he arrived by boat on Christmas Island on November 1, 2009 and holding little hope of ever seeing his wife and three daughters again.

It was April 28. Dark clouds always hover over him on this day, the anniversary of the day he received, in 2011, notification of his ASIO assessment. His depressive state of mind had been exacerbated by a row with a Serco guard over a $30 phone card, which he'd purchased by mistake and now couldn't exchange. "I was really upset about this. It then triggered all those thoughts about my life now, about my ASIO rejection and my family," he told me through a Tamil interpreter.

It was 10.30am. He went to his room and closed the door. He went to his shaving gear and took out a razor blade. He sat on his bed and began cutting himself. He sliced into his stomach, his neck, his chest and both hands. By the time he'd finished he estimates there were at least 25 deep cuts and scores of other cuts.

As he was cutting himself, a Serco guard knocked on his door. "I threw the blade away, put a blanket around my body and lay on my bed," he said. "The guard came in and asked me what I was doing. He touched me and saw my body was bleeding. They were going to get medical help but I said I didn't want any. Instead, they put two guards outside my room to watch me. At the time there wasn't much pain. Now my whole body is in pain and I am receiving treatment and medication.

"I don't know what to say. I can't really believe I have done this. I was trying to make a point by cutting all over my body. I was angry and now I'm suffering for it. I feel my life is doomed. I have been trying to control myself for a long time. But things are getting out of my control. I can't bear the pain of being locked away anymore."

Deva, a fisherman from a coastal village in the north of Sri Lanka, says he fled to India in 2006 because his family faced persecution due to his brother's membership of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which fought a civil war against government forces for almost 30 years and was wiped out in the final months of the war in 2009. He says by then India had also become unsafe for Tamils who had any links to LTTE, family or otherwise. That's when he took a boat to Australia.

ASIO judged him to be a security threat, stating, in an unclassified document, he was "likely an active member of the LTTE" and that he has "significant familial links to the LTTE". He admits his brother’s membership but has denied to ASIO he was ever a member.

Sasi's release highlights the travesty of these secret ASIO assessments. He was also accused of being a member of the LTTE, which he always insisted was false. Despite many inconsistencies being revealed in his case, the independent reviewer, Margaret Stone, confirmed the ASIO judgment last June and was due to review his case again next month. Now ASIO has changed its mind. It has provided no proper reason, no apology, and, most importantly, no compensation.

The end result is that an innocent man has lost four and half years of his life, during which time he has suffered psychological trauma. He is not the first. At least three other Tamils have had their negative security assessments lifted after long periods of detention.

Medical experts have long concluded that indefinite detention is the most damaging form of incarceration. These people have not been charged with any crime, yet they are treated worse than murderers and rapists, who at least know the length of their sentences. They also have no idea of the full reasons behind the assessments. Australian citizens can challenge negative security assessments in a court and see the evidence. Refugees cannot.

It's little wonder that self-harm, suicide attempts and hunger strikes are regular occurrences among the ASIO-rejected refugees. This is our Guantanamo, bringing international shame upon Australia, especially when a federal government that likes to boast about its presidency of the Security Council openly defies a UN Human Rights Committee’s directive to release, rehabilitate and compensate these people. Indeed, Australia's reputation as a human rights defender, already in tatters because of its cruel asylum-seeker policy, is under much greater threat than our security from these people.

There is a simple solution. The federal Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, has the power to release them today, under some form of control order, if he must.

Meanwhile, another victim, Deva, sits in his room, waiting for his wounds to heal and fearing that he is losing his mind.

Trevor Grant is a former Age journalist who works with the Tamil Refugee Council.

A Statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission - WORLD: The Sri Lankan Government retaliates to proposed the Human Rights Council resolution by arresting activists and witnesses

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-STM-045-2014
March 17, 2014

A draft resolution promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka is to be discussed at the United Nations Human Rights Council. The proposed resolution calls for, among other things, the Office of the High Commissioner, "To lead a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka and establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes committed with the view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability with assistance from relevant experts".

In retaliation to this proposed resolution the government is conducting demonstrations in various parts of the country through its supporters.

Meanwhile, a number of human rights activists have been arrested, detained, and are being interrogated by the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID). Yesterday night (March 16, 2014), Ruki Fernando and the Rev. Praveen were arrested in Kilinochchi by the TID. Last week, Ms. Balendran Jayakumari and her 13-year-old daughter, Vithuskaini, who have been campaigning against enforced disappearances were also arrested and are being interrogated by the TID.

Ruki Fernando is a human rights advisor to INFORM, a human rights documentation centre based in Colombo. He is a well known human rights defender in Sri Lanka who has also participated in international advocacy for the protection and promotion of human rights in the country. Rev. Praveen OMI is the director for the Centre for Peace and Reconciliation (CPR) based in Jaffna. Both of them were travelling to visit Ms. Jayakumari and Vithuskaini.

Two lawyers contacted the Kilinochchi Police Station soon after the arrest of Fernando and Rev. Praveen came to be known. Initially the Kilinochchi police denied that they had made the arrest. However, they informed that two persons had been arrested by a specially appointed unit of the TID and they were being held at a separate location in Kilinochchi. Later the Kilinochchi police confirmed that Ruki Fernando and Rev. Praveen were being questioned by around 15 TID officers at the Kilinochchi Police Station. The OIC of the Kilinochchi police, Mr. Kumara, later confirmed the arrest of these two persons and further stated that "Ruki Fernando and Rev. Praveen behaved in a suspicious manner as they visited some families of those who have lost their family members".

The arrest of Ruki Fernando and Rev. Praveen, as well as Ms. Balendran Jayakumari and her 13-year-old daughter, Vithuskaini, was done with the involvement of a large number of TID officers and security personnel. Before the arrest of Ms. Jayakumari and her daughter it is reported that a large group of army personnel surrounded her house. Ms. Jayakumari and her daughter campaigned for information regarding persons who had been victims of enforced disappearances which included Ms. Jayakumari's son. A picture of the daughter appeared in the media, holding her disappeared brother's photograph, calling for his recovery.

The Asian Human Rights Commission calls upon the Sri Lankan government to engage with the Human Rights Council in a positive manner and make use of the opportunity of this resolution to overcome many of the serious problems relating to human rights and the protection of the country's citizens which has prevailed in Sri Lanka over a long period of time. The entire legal system, including the capacity of the police for investigations into crimes, the capacity of the Attorney General's Department to act as an independent and impartial prosecutor and above all the capacity of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka to act independently and ensure the protection for individuals against state repression has all been undermined and compromised. The opportunity that has become available through the premier global institution for the protection of human rights, which is the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner's office, provides an unprecedented opportunity to resolve these problems and to reestablish rule of law which has been lost.

As the proposed resolution also empowers the High Commissioner's office to investigate human rights violations and other crimes committed by the LTTE this provides a great opportunity to reestablish and strengthen the capacity of the Sri Lankan state to deal with problems of terrorism and to establish a framework to prevent the recurrence of the dismal situation which has prevailed during the last four decades. In this manner the proposed resolution also provides an opportunity for the Sri Lankan state to abandon the militaristic path that it has entered into after the suppression of the LTTE. Demilitarisation is an unavoidable necessity for the normalization of the entire situation of the country as well as for reconciliation with the minorities.

The Asian Human Rights Commission calls upon the president of Sri Lanka and the government not to utilise the proposed resolution as a propaganda stunt for petty political ends. The position taken by the Sri Lankan president and expressed openly through the media that it is only the people through the electoral process that has the power to deal with any crimes that may have been committed, is an untenable position under international law. Sri Lanka, as a member of the United Nations and also a participant of the Human Rights Council is not entitled to challenge the very mandate of the United Nations and the Human Rights Council. Such challenges do not contribute to the betterment of the country but, in fact, lead to the isolation of Sri Lanka within the community of nations.

We especially call upon the Sri Lankan government not to use its security forces, particularly the Terrorism Investigation Division and intelligence services with a view to harass and intimidate victims of human rights abuses who seek justice and human rights defenders, journalists and others who are playing their role to ensure protection for the people.

We call upon the Sri Lankan government to release Ms. Balendran Jayakumari and her 13-year-old daughter, Vithuskaini, Ruki Fernando and Rev. Praveen as there is no justifiable reason to arrest or detain them.

We call upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to pay special attention during this time of the debate on the proposed resolution, and thereafter, to take all measures within her mandate to ensure protection for victims of human rights abuse by the government as well as the LTTE so as to avoid their harassment and intimidation. This must also include the protection of human rights defenders, journalists and all other persons who want to contribute to justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka.

We also call upon all civil society organisations throughout the world and media organisations to be on special alert on behalf of the victims of human rights abuses, human rights defenders, journalists and others on this special occasion and in the immediate period thereafter.


# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Read this Statement online

Australia Will Keep Detaining Refugees Indefinitely, Whatever the World Thinks - Ian Lloyd Neubauer

March 6, 2014

An Iranian detainee walks back to her room after hanging up her laundry at the center used for younger men, and women and children, on Christmas Island, Australia. Paula Bronstein—Getty Images
Canberra says it's a matter of security and deterring people smugglers, but detainees pay a heavy price

In 1992, Australia introduced a mandatory detention policy for non-citizens entering the country without a valid visa. It was intended to be a risk-management tool, enabling the health and security status of refugees and illegal immigrants to be checked while preventing such arrivals from simply vanishing into the general population.



While that sounds reasonable on paper, the reality is that there are today around 10,000 men, women and children detained indefinitely, without hope of release unless they agree to return to the countries they risked their lives to flee in the first place. Just under half that number are being held in squalid detention centers in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the South Pacific island of Nauru that are breeding grounds for rape, rioting, malaria and mental illness, and that bear the look and feel of concentration camps.

“If a liberal democracy decides a group of people, depending on where they come from, can have their liberty placed in jeopardy without the ability to defend themselves, then the consequences are very dire – not only for that specific group but for everyone in that country that supposedly lives under the rule of law,” says David Mann, head of the legal team at Melbourne’s Refugee and Immigration Legal Center. “It casts a very dark shadow over Australia’s commitment to human rights and fundamental respect for human dignity.”

The government’s view is that Australia’s security must come first. “Security assessments are an important part of ensuring the safety of Australians,” the Attorney-General’s office told TIME.

The authorities also say that holding asylum-seekers in places like PNG deters people smuggling. “The Government’s offshore processing policy is designed to prevent people smugglers sending illegal boats to Australia, which over the last five years has resulted in the deaths of over 1,100 people at sea and more than 15,000 people in camps around the world being denied resettlement in Australia, as their places were taken by people who arrived illegally by boat,” a spokesperson for the Ministry for Immigration and Border Protection said. “These policies are proving to be highly effective, with 75 days having passed without a successful people smuggling venture to Australia.”

Critics however point to the harsh and often dangerous conditions of the camps. Last month, at a detention center on PNG’s Manus Island, a 23-year-old Iranian national, Reza Barati, was found dead with a blunt force trauma to the head, and 76 others refugees were shot or otherwise wounded, after local security guards responded to a protest by the 1,100 predominantly Middle Eastern asylum seekers kept there.

The bloodshed sparked hundreds of candlelight vigils across Australia, including a 4000-strong protest in front of Sydney’s Town Hall. Hunger strikes took place at a number of other detention centers, and widespread condemnations were made by respected figures such former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who oversaw the successful integration of thousands of Vietnamese refugees fleeing war in the late 1970s. Numerous social media campaigns have also surfaced to vent disapproval, including the website sorryasylumseekers.com where Australians post selfies taken while bearing placards reading “Not in my name.”

In Tehran, Australia’s Ambassador Paul Foley was summonsed to demand changes to his government’s treatment of asylum seekers. In Beijing, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Li Baodong questioned the legality of repatriating asylum seekers to third countries and detaining children. And in PNG, Manus Island Police Chief Alex N’Drasal has called on Australia to address poor conditions inside the detention center, while local Catholic bishops this week released a joint statement demanding the center be closed.

“Detaining people against their will in PNG, even if it works as a deterrent, is not a just solution worthy of a great nation otherwise proud of its human rights record,” the bishops stated, saying they encouraged Australia “to find a more humane solution to people seeking asylum in their country.”

Also drawing fire is the fate of 46 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Myanmar recognized as refugees by Australia, yet who remain in indefinite detention after receiving negative security assessments from the country’s chief spy agency ASIO. Details on how those assessments were reached have been withheld from the accused, creating a legal black hole legal experts are comparing to the incarceration of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

“The comparison is valid because in both cases there are very serious procedural irregularities preventing people from getting a fair hearing and effectively challenging the accusations against them,” says Dr Ben Saul, a professor of international law at the University of Sydney. “Of course there are differences – the refugees are not being tortured as was the case at Guantanamo and the conditions under which people are detained in Australia are undoubtedly better.

“But they are being subjected to the next worse thing which is indefinite detention, in some cases for as long as five years,” he says. “If you are stuck in there forever not knowing when if ever you will be released, it inflicts and aggravates extreme mental illness. That’s why so many of these detainees have attempted suicide.”

The UN’s Human Rights Committee agrees. In August of last year, it described Australia’s arbitrary and indefinite detention of asylum seekers as “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” and set a deadline for Australia to release the 46 individuals into the community and the payment of compensation under its obligations as signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The deadline expired last week, with the office of Australia’s Attorney-General’s saying that it was still considering its response.

Despite the legal and humanitarian shortcomings of Australia’s tough stance on asylum seekers, a recent poll by MUR Research shows 60 percent of Australians want the government to “increase the severity” of its treatment of asylum seekers as a means to combat the dangerous people smuggling business that in recent years has flourished in Indonesia.

Even a portion of those who’ve been detained by Australia think the policy is necessary. “If I were in charge, I would do the same,” says a former asylum seeker from the Middle East who refused to give his name it case it imperiled his new status Australia. “This country has borders and laws and I agree people do not have the right to enter illegally.

“But while saying that,” he continues, “most people in detention did not have a choice and they did not come for financial reasons. They were forced into the situation because they could not come here legally and they had nowhere else to go.

“People living in a good country like Australia could never imagine what it’s like living in a war zone, or to have their safety and the safety of their children constantly threatened by violence and persecution,” he says. “They will never understand what it means to live under danger unless they have experienced it themselves.

Australia justifies its 'white trash of Asia' nickname

After 13 year wait, Sri Lankan asylum seekers' hopes are dashed


Fr Michael Kelly SJ, Bangkok
Australia
February 19, 201

It is now over 30 years since the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described Australians as the “white trash of Asia”. The barb stung and is still recalled with shame and hurt by Australian politicians as then prime minister Julia Gillard did in 2012.

But the term has reached a new level of accuracy since the arrival of the current Australian government led by Tony Abbott, who has degraded Australia’s relations with China, Indonesia and Timor Leste close to their lowest points in decades with one piece of diplomatic ineptitude and insensitivity after another.

White trash is a derogatory American English term referring to poor white people, especially in the rural south of the US, suggesting lower social class and degraded standards. The term suggests outcasts from respectable society, living on the fringes of the social order and seen as dangerous because they may be criminal, unpredictable, and without respect for authority whether it be political, legal, or moral

While the deafening “stop the boats” mantra of the Abbott government, with muscle supplied by the defence forces in Operation Sovereign Nation, gains all the media attention in Australia and throughout the Asian region, a policy shift introduced by the government on refugees and asylum seekers has gone almost unnoticed.

By accident this week, and despite the government policy of “no speaks”, I discovered something new – to me anyway. Almost since the day they arrived on the Treasury benches, the Abbott government has found a new way of persecuting victims.

In Immigration Minister Scott Morrison’s armory now is a rule that anyone who arrived by boat in Australia is unable to sponsor any other refugee or asylum seeker.

Thanks to information provided to me this week in Bangkok by the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), I discovered that a Sri Lankan family that has been waiting for resettlement for 13 years and was finally accepted by Australia, then had their visas revoked because relatives who reached Australia by sea were sponsoring them.

I was speaking with one of the legal team at JRS, Kathryn Smyth, because of some Pakistanis I am helping with their application for refugee status. In response to a request from a Jesuit friend in Pakistan, I am effectively in loco parentis for five (soon to be six with a birth expected in April) refugees whose only crime in Pakistan is that they are Catholics.

They were forced to flee following events where they were beaten, shot at and given the popularly administered death sentence that comes with accusations of blasphemy.

With Kathryn, I was checking some of the documents I’ve prepared for these people and she told me again in graphic detail something I know too well: that even if they got the first of three interviews with the UNHCR today, they would most likely not get the second interview until January 2016.

And then there’s a further year of waiting for the UNHCR’s adjudication followed by an unknown wait for a country to accept them for resettlement.

I said “yes, yes, I and they know about it,” only to be told of the casual vindictiveness of the Abbott government in its merciless treatment of people adjudged by the UN to have “a well founded fear for their lives on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion”.

There are literally thousands of refugees and asylum seekers in Thailand. The UNHCR can’t cope with the scale of demand that the troubles in Pakistan and Afghanistan are presenting them with. When a refugee lands in Bangkok, they register with the UN for consideration of their case.

Many of the refugees and asylum seekers in Bangkok are like my friends – Christians fleeing the terror of the blasphemy laws introduced by President Zia Ul Haq who was assassinated in 1988. Those laws allowed Muslims to allege that anyone had been blasphemous by insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Summary execution of the accused is then allowed with no action taken by police or courts to bring the murderers to justice.

For refugees arriving in Bangkok, it takes between three and six months to get to first base – and initial consideration that allows the applicant to be scheduled for an interview about their case that takes at least two years to happen.

And in the Thai capital, there are currently 3,100 in that category of applicants trying to get to first base. There are many thousands more in the line waiting for the interview two years hence. They live on a pittance, patiently doing all they can do – wait!

For the Sri Lankan family I mentioned earlier, where do they go after 13 years waiting, finally getting acceptance only to have the prize ripped from their grasp? Perhaps the Australian government has done them a favor. Who’d want to live in a place that treats human beings this way?

White trash, as mentioned, live beyond the common standards of decency and respect for human dignity, and through their assessments and actions degrade the common humanity we share.

As an Australian, I regret to say the country’s performance in Asia deserves the description that former prime minister Lee gave us long ago.

Fr Michael Kelly is the executive director of ucanews.com
--


Fr Pan Jordan OP

A Human Rights Manifesto

by Ron Jacobs / December 30th, 2013


Julie Wark has written a manifesto for justice. Simply titled The Human Rights Manifesto, her book examines the UN Declaration of Human Rights and compares it to the current situation. In doing so, it is clear that we as a species have failed. While there is certainly plenty of blame to go around, from those activists who have resigned from the battle to those who have convinced themselves that the current political and economic systems are capable of remedying the daily violations of human rights, the bulk of the blame remains with the greatest violators of those rights. That means governments, their militaries and police officials, and their courts. The ultimate violator however, in every measurement Ms. Wark relates, is the current manifestation of the capitalist economy: neoliberalism.

This book destroys the myth that neoliberal capitalism is a positive force for humankind. It does so by merely stating the facts. Example after example of the cruelties and deprivations unleashed in the name of corporate and financial freedom leap from these pages. Thousands of children starving every day; forests, rivers and mountains ravaged, raped and destroyed by the machines ploughing under our planet’s future; wars undertaken and resistance destroyed to ensure the continued expansion until death of the capitalist system emanating from the world’s financial capitals. The perversion of local and national food economies via corporate manipulation of production through the commodification of food and artificial GMOs to the withholding of fertilizers and food via sanctions, humanity’s fundamental right to not starve is denied. Despite the ravages described in The Human Rights Manifesto, the author holds out an optimistic hope flickering in this litany of despair. That flicker emanates from that long-forgotten and ignored declaration.

It’s been clear to many for a while that humanitarian interventions are usually something else entirely. How else could one explain the increase in death that often occurs after the supposedly humanitarian troops arrive with their automatic weapons, their fighter planes and attack helicopters? How else can one explain the fact that when the original military phase of such interventions are over, the foreign troops remain, imposing the will of their political and corporate commanders back home? How else does one explain that in so many of these interventions, the majority of the civilians residing in said countries still find their lives at risk? The nature of these interventions and their non-humanitarian results have led many to scoff whenever the words “human rights” appear as a motivation. This skepticism feeds into the invaders’ dynamic quite helpfully, leaving their military power plays unchallenged in any meaningful way.

Ms. Wark’s book reclaims human rights for those whom they were originally intended. That is, for all humanity, especially those whose existence is considered unnecessary by the Goldman Sachs of the world. Instead of defining these rights in a manner that considers the right to buy and sell to be more important than the right to eat, Wark’s text is inspired by an understanding that human rights can only be human rights when they are applied to all of humanity, not just those of a certain nation, political or religious philosophy, and certainly not only to those with property and wealth.

Essentially anarchist in its analysis, The Human Rights Manifesto gives no government or economic system a free pass. Yet it is primarily a searing indictment of neoliberal capitalism.

Don Winslow is the author of several works of crime fiction. His novels are about people that travel in the smuggling of contraband, drugs and human. The laws of society rarely apply in Winslow’s world. Instead, it is usually the individual who is most brutal and amoral that succeeds. When the force of justice does appear, usually in the form of a renegade cop or private investigator, that justice is without mercy. I mention Winslow because Wark quotes his novels in her book. The quotes she chooses are not laudatory. Instead, they compare the morality of those who run and profit from the neoliberal capitalist economy to those that operate in the murderous economy Mr. Winslow writes of so graphically in his novels. The difference, the use of these quotes seems to claim, is just a matter of scale.

Perhaps the most interesting discussion in this book is the one presented by Wark concerning language and its (mis)use and manipulation. She lambastes the misuse of words like justice and the phrase human rights. Not only has their meaning been manipulated, it has been rendered meaningless. If the words describing a phenomenon no longer have any absolute meaning, then the phenomena become whatever those in power decide. In this world, justice becomes revenge and war becomes humanitarian intervention.

When the original UN Declaration was signed in 1948, it combined economic and political rights. After the major capitalist nations balked at the two elements being linked, the declaration was split and those nations objecting did not sign the part dealing with economic rights, which included statements detailing the right of all humanity to form labor unions, earn a fair wage, have shelter, health care, food and education. Washington and its cohorts knew that including these in any declaration of human rights would make the world they hoped to help build–the world we live in today–pretty much impossible. After all, without the commodification of food, education, shelter and health care, how would the financial-corporate nexus control the world like they do now?

Julie Wark’s book is a revolutionary tract. All it does is demands that the human rights claimed by the wealthiest and most powerful in our world be applied to everyone. It is a shame that such a demand has become a call to revolution. But, if that’s what is demanded, then we would do well to begin.

Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground and Tripping Through the American Night, and the novels Short Order Frame Up and The Co-Conspirator's Tale. His third novel All the Sinners, Saints is a companion to the previous two and was published early in 2013. Read other articles by Ron.

This article was posted on Monday, December 30th, 2013, Dissident Voice