"Snowden"

Directed by Oliver Stone

In cinemas now

How often in real life do people stand up to the behemoth that is the mighty US spy/war apparatus and get away with it? Not often enough. But if you count living in limbo in Russia – unable to fly to asylum in a third country once his passport was cancelled, unable to return home to the USA without fear of a rigged, secret trial on espionage charges – as getting away with it, Edward Snowden not only did that, but in a massive leak of classified information, gave the US and world public information about the unprecedented surveillance of US and global citizens, information essential for public discussion about privacy and the reach of government and corporate data collection.

Oliver Stone's newly released film “Snowden” recounts the story in a dramatisation that takes us on a journey from Snowden's administrative discharge from the military with fractures in both shins in around 2004, into his career in the CIA and then as an intelligence contractor, up to the momentous events of 2013 when he passed information about the PRISM program and other surveillance activities to journalists Laura Poitras, Glen Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill.

The information is publicly available, so it's no spoiler to speak of Snowden eluding capture in Hong Kong and being granted first one then three years' asylum in Russia, where he remains now.

The film is well made, acted and scripted. It portrays Snowden's transition from a patriot who believes in the rightness of his country and his commander-in-chief's decisions, to one deeply troubled by the impact of surveillance activities justified in the name of counter-terrorism but in reality, designed to ensure US government supremacy. The final straw for Snowden is the realisation that unimpeded data collection by US federal spy agencies and their contractors is primarily focused, not on the USA's rivals or enemies, but on US citizens.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as a convincing Snowden, and Shailene Woodley, as Lindsay Mills, Snowden's partner. Their political differences (she's a liberal who signs an anti-war petition; he's a conservative who is sure the Iraq war is right) make for an amusing foil to show that Snowden was no radical, intent on harming US security. It pitches him to a US audience as someone who simply takes seriously the US constitution's fourth amendment (against unreasonable searches and seizures), and who was prepared to defend it at great personal cost. The impact of the life of a spy and even more, of a spy who becomes convinced his government is doing something fundamentally flawed is played out in the strain on their relationship and in Snowden's decision not to tell Mills what he has found or what he is going to do, in order to protect her from being an accomplice in his data breach.

Snowden's relationships with others in the spy community add another interesting, and personal dimension, though it's the nature of the biopic genre that we're left wondering where creative license begins and ends. The portrayal of macho culture in the military and casual sexism in the spy community seems undoubtedly realistic. How Snowden copies and smuggles the all-important files out makes for great drama and suggests loyalty of like-minded friends.

This film has already begun to have an impact on audiences. It is likely to be more powerful for those not already familiar with the story, particularly those who haven't watched Laura Poitras' documentary, Citzenfour and perhaps other films. But even those who've seen Citizenfour may enjoy the background provided by “Snowden,” and the personal dimension it provides, even as it breaks down what's wrong with what the spy agencies are doing, in ways that non-geeks can understand.

Towards the end of the film, news headlines are used to indicate the extent of legal reform triggered by Snowden's leak. It would be too much to ask the film to delve into how much these laws are window dressing for public consumption and whether they have resulted in any changes in mass surveillance in practice, and it really doesn't go there. But what is clear is that Snowden's brave actions triggered a global discussion. And a US federal appeals court finding that the surveillance program was illegal is certainly vindication of his rationale for his leak.

In an unusual twist, Edward Snowden appears as himself at the end of the film, responding to questions in a forum connecting him by videolink to a live audience. It provides an extra dose of realism: it's a dramatic story, but true, and still being played out by a person still at risk from the secret government he exposed.

The release of the film is well-timed for the campaign for Snowden's pardon. Obama came to power promising whistleblower protection, but instead has made history as the US president whose administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other. As the campaign gears up to call on Obama to use his last days in the presidency to pardon the best-known US whistleblower of the 21^st century, “Snowden” has potential to entertain, inform, and call to act.

More information about that campaign can be found at PardonSnowden.

In song: Prism

Qld pro-choice bill faces set-back

Pro-choice activists in Queensland have expressed disappointment at the release of a parliamentary report on August 26^th that failed to support the bill before Qld parliament to decriminalise abortion.

In a public statement, advocacy group Pro Choice Queensland said, “the bi-partisan Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee’s report into abortion law reform concludes reform is needed, but is unfortunately indecisive about what that reform should be.”

The bill was introduced into parliament in May this year by independent MP for the Qld seat of Cairns, Rob Pyne. It was referred to a parliamentary health committee to consider.

After reviewing over 1400 submissions and hearing over 31 hours of evidence and perspectives, the committee compiled a comprehensive report on current abortion law in Qld, laws in other Australian jurisdictions, regulation of abortion by medical professional bodies and the Qld health department, and relevant international human rights law. It describes current abortion practice in Qld, community attitudes towards abortion, approaches to reducing the need for abortion, the health effects of abortion, abortion and young people, counselling, conscientious objection to providing abortion, and other issues.

Key findings of the report include that the current law, which makes abortion a criminal offence except in the case of serious medical or psychological risk to the woman, is out of step with current medical practice in Queensland. It points out that there is majority support for abortion to be readily available to women who seek it, although that support declines with advancing pregnancy duration. The report found that decriminalising abortion would bring Qld into line with Australia's international treaty obligations regarding the rights of women and children. The report described the existing codes of medical conduct that both affirm the right of conscientious refusal to participate in abortion, while balancing it with the duty to ensure that that refusal doesn't interfere with patients' right to care by practitioners who don't have such objections. It also outlined existing codes of conduct and guidelines for performance of abortion late in pregnancy.

It outlined a number of possible approaches to the law, not arguing in favour of any of them directly, but merely against the adoption of the decriminalisation bill.

It seems that they lost their nerve at the point where it mattered.

In summarising their objections to the bill, the committee highlighted community concerns about the need to regulate late gestation abortion, even though acknowledging the existence of existing regulations, parallel to the current law. They also referred to concerns about protecting conscientious objectors. In light of existing regulations and codes, they don't stack up as reasons to maintain the existing criminal status of abortion.

“These regulations would not suddenly disappear because abortion was no longer a crime. Medicine, and particularly abortion, is heavily regulated by Health and Hospital Service Boards, professional standards and clinical guidelines, licensing, and medical insurers to name a few. Doctors need clarity, and we have been waiting too long for someone in Parliament to do something about it,” says Dr Caroline de Costa, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the College of Medicine at James Cook University.

The report argues that decriminalisation alone would do nothing to improve access to abortion for children considered unable to provide consent for themselves (whose parents are not allowed to provide consent – not because of the criminal law, but other case law), and that it would leave the issue of protests outside services where abortion are offered unaddressed. These are important, and should be addressed. But without providing a clear way forward, these don't seem so much reasons not to pass the bill before parliament as reasons to support any additional legislation that may be put forward to address them – now, or at any time.

The bipartisan report's recommendation against the bill's passage makes it less likely to be passed at this time, however, an additional bill, which addresses some of the concerns about gestation raised by the committee – including gestational limits, safe access zones around abortion facilities and conscientious objection – was introduced by Pyne on August 17 and is yet to be considered by the committee.

Regardless, pro-choice activists are planning on continuing their campaign to ensure women in Qld have equitable access to legal abortion.

Published at Green Left Weekly, Sept 1, 2016