 I'm speaking about Bernard Caleri tonight. Violence, ruin and blame are three realities in Bernard Caleri's life. Now, you'd know the scenario, but here it is. Australia spied on the government of Timor-Leste in 2004. But one of the spies complained when he found out that the foreign minister who ordered the espionage was lobbying for the oil company with the most to gain from any deal that was struck. Internal complaints in ACES, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service went unheeded, but they affected the spies employment status. And so he complained again. The complaints process meant that he was given a list of approved lawyers to approach and he chose Bernard Caleri. Caleri at the time was employed by the Timber-Leste government as an advisor. He rightly asks, why was my name on that list? Once the Timorese government knew they'd been spied on, they withdrew from the treaty in question. They then demanded their right to an internationally recognized maritime boundary. After Australia was dragged kicking and screaming through a United Nations compulsory conciliation, the only nation so far to have been required to undergo that process, the border was finalized in New York in March, 2018. Two months later, the spy and his lawyer were charged with offences against the criminal code and the Intelligence Services Act. In the more than three years since then, there have been over 60 court hearings and the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars to prosecute these two Australians. Eminent retired Judge Stephen Charles, AOQC, said this of the spying and the prosecutions. The Australian government's performance in dealing with our poorest neighbour is one of mendacity, duplicity, fraud, criminal behaviour, invasions of legal professional privilege, contempt of court, denial of a fair trial and a failure to act as a model litigant. The prosecution of Bernard Caleri, a high-profile barrister and former Deputy Chief Minister and Attorney-General of the ACT, has cost him his livelihood. Charging him under the criminal code implies criminality. He claims his right to a fair trial by jury, an event that is still far in the future. He has been prevented from seeing all the evidence gathered against him. Some laws designed to thwart terrorists have only to date been used against him. He won an appeal in the ACT courts recently against the levels of secrecy in the matter, but the government is challenging the outcome in the High Court. The full apparatus of the Australian state is attempting to crush Bernard Caleri. What are the probable human responses to violence, ruin and blame? We don't need to look far to find that violence is so often countered by other violence. Family members get killed, courts get bombed, antagonists get murdered. We see daily the outcome of violent responses to violence, more violence. But what is the alternative? One of the greatest misinterpretations of the teachings of Jesus concerns his advice to turn the other cheek. This has been used for centuries to accept violent treatment, to advocate compliance, to buckle in the face of the abuse of power, to advise women to remain in abusive relationships, to allow might to be considered right. It has been used to extoll the vocation of doormat. It is no such thing. But Jesus did not promote violent response to violence. He had more brains. He was warning against us mirroring the evil we hate of multiplying the violence we rightly oppose. He was not only ahead of his time, he was ahead of our time and the total stupidity all around us of tit for tat violence. We are gradually realising the extraordinary leap in human consciousness that his teachings embody. However, too many still interpret him as advocating non-resistance, as favouring passivity in the face of wrong. The sort of teaching that says, ah, so the economic or political system is against you. Well, if you say your prayers and accept your lot in life, you will get a high place in heaven. Rubbish. What Jesus taught was active, nonviolent resistance. Active, nonviolent resistance, which takes enormous courage. This is the meaning of three examples that Jesus used found in Matthew's gospel. You have heard it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. The eye for eye, tooth for tooth idea, occurs in the Jewish scriptures, and it was a huge advance on previous practice. The usual way of doing things that was if somebody blinded your eye, you would get all the relics together and destroy that person and all their family. The eye for an eye at least introduced some measure of proportionality. Okay, he put your eye out, so you put his out, but nothing more. And Jesus comes along and says, no, not that. Don't resist by using violence against violence. The sense of the word resist in the biblical Greek text there is always war-like resistance implying violence. It is unfortunate that it is used in English in this context. The three examples he gives explain it further, although we have misinterpreted them too for centuries. So turn the other cheek, give your undergarment as well, go the second mile. These have been transformed from revolutionary statements into the policy documents of cringing pushovers. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. Why the right cheek? In that society, the right hand blessed, gave gifts and was associated with God while the left was suspect where we get our word sinister and used for toileting purposes. In some groups, there were even harsh penalties for even gesturing with the left hand. We all know of the misguided attempts to force left-handed children to write with their right hand even in our own times. So then if someone hits someone else with the right hand, either a fist or an open hand, the blow would land on the left cheek of the opponent. So the only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be as a backhander. Such is not a fight between equals, but a situation of dominance, of insult, husbands backhanded wives, parents backhanded children, Romans backhanded Jews. These are unequal relations and any retaliation would invite severe punishment. The only way to survive would be to submit. So you've been backhanded and Jesus is the same, turn the other cheek. The only way your oppressor can hit you on the left cheek with their culturally correct right hand would be with their open palm or fist as they would with people equal to them. It could not be a backhander. Thus, if they take your offer of the left cheek, they would put you in a different position not as an inferior, but as an equal. You then rob your aggressor of the power to humiliate you. You are saying, have another go. You fail to humiliate me the first time. I choose to whom I will bow. Of course, you will be probably hauled off to the dungeon and flogged for your insolence, but you have made your point. By inviting a hit on your left cheek, you have used a cultural practice to assert your equality as human. You have not been shamed, but have rendered your aggressor impotent, even if only for the duration of the interaction. Mahatma Gandhi taught, the first principle of nonviolent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating. Grace Tame, in a very real sense, turned the other cheek. And so does Bernard Kaleri. The second example is a legal one. If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well. Debtors had to provide a pledge that their debt would be paid. Poor debtors often only had the clothes they stood up in as collateral. They usually wore an outer garment of wool and an undergarment of linen. The indebted poor were ground down by Roman policy to the extent that even their clothes were up for grabs in that humiliating economic system. But here we have Jesus advising the people to surrender their undergarment when their outer garment is taken from them. He's actually advising shedding their clothes and walking away stark naked. Nakedness was taboo in Israel, yet those who viewed or caused nakedness bore more shame than the naked party. It recalls Noah's drunken naked state in the book of Genesis and Isaiah's prophetic sign of walking naked for three years in protest against an oppressive system. So even though the law was on the creditor's side, he is left standing only with the debtor's clothes and some amused bystanders, hardly a win for capitalism. The debtor's refusal to be humiliated has turned the tables on an oppressive system and reveals the creditor as its handmaiden. The debtor has the last laugh. Even where structural change is not immediately possible, lampooning emboldens the powerless to seize the initiative. Burlesque reveals the cruelty of legal systems that have been manipulated to serve the powerful. Alan Moyer's cartoon, Freedom From Information shows Calary and his client with bags on their heads and everyone else in the court blindfolded, except for a very satisfied Alexander Downer in the public benches. Jesus' third example is, and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. This arises from the relatively enlightened practice of limiting the amount of labor that Roman soldiers could force on subject peoples. The carrying of military baggage could only be for the distance of a mile. So unpopular was the practice that whole villages fled to avoid being forced to carry soldiers' equipment. And so rules were applied to the soldiers. Those who misused the practice faced the cutting of rations or pay or perhaps simply a rebuke. However, so many decrees were issued to curb the misuse of the practice, it is clear that it was widespread. Why then does Jesus suggest that a person offered to carry the soldiers pack a second mile? As in the two previous instances, this is how people can assert their human dignity. You can recover the initiative in a situation that cannot, for the time being, be changed. The soldier is thrown into confusion at the offer. He is suspicious as to the motive. Will he get into trouble? He may decide to take his pack and carry it himself or get someone else to carry it or he may decide to chance it. But he's not sure whether he will be reported. Is it worth it? As an oppressed person, you have once more seized the initiative. You have taken back the power of choice and the soldier is thrown off balance. Jesus is encouraging people at the bottom of society or under the thumb of power to assert their dignity. What has all this got to do with Bernard Caleri? I see Bernard as a singular example of the courage that steals an individual to take on the state. He is undertaking active nonviolent resistance. Violence is being done to him. The violence of a state fearful of the repercussions of admitting its particularly odious act of spying on an impoverished neighbor. The violence of a state that is so bereft of honor that it will paint danger to the reputations of past politicians as a threat to national security. A state that regards the favor of corporations more important than the right to fair trials and open justice in the courts. A state that is pretending that this persecution is necessary to protect Australians against unnamed threats from unnamed forces. Bernard is turning the other cheek. He stands in court as a servant of the law that is meant to serve the people. The backhanders he is receiving are met with dignity and the willingness to look his detractors in the eye as their absolute equal. The Australian state has already seized his outer garment, his legal practice, his name, his reputation, his career as a loyal patriot. He may well hand over his under-government. It would be good if he gave it to them. They could do with the true sense of justice, a willingness to tell the truth, a clear idea of honesty in business dealings and a true respect for the law. The longer this fast goes on, the more honorable and courageous Bernard Caleri appears. The longer it lasts, the clearer it is that certain well-known Australian notables are the camp followers of cowardice. And Bernard is already on the second mile. Politicians are dithering about what the hell to do now that they've come up against a man of principle who in effect says, you bring the law against me? Fine, let us go further and test the law and you fully. The result is that everyone can see the complete idiot that the Australian government has made of itself. It's claimed to act as an exemplar of the rule of law. It's trumpeting about fair go and its pretence of adherence to the international obligations of the civilized world is in tatters. Who would trust this Australian government now? I wouldn't. But people may say, look what's happening in Ukraine, in Yemen, in Ethiopia. How could Germany have been defeated in World War II if not for stronger violent action? How can you possibly advocate non-violence? People have to protect themselves. Yes, they do. But the Hitler's, the Stalin's, the Pol Potts, the Sahartos and the Trumps of this world do not come ready packaged. They are individuals who make choices. Individuals with a background, a childhood, a set of influences on them. The individual is paramount. The choices made by individuals dictate the future. Violence begets violence. Courage begets courage. I'll end with a list of actions proposed by Walter Wink from whom I learned much of what I've said. They are 12 actions from the third way, the third way, the alternative to passive compliance, the alternative to violent response. And here they are. Find a creative alternative to violence. Assert your own humanity and dignity as a person. Meet force with ridicule or humor. Refuse to submit or to accept the inferior position. Expose the injustice of the system. Stand your ground. Recognize your own power. Be willing to suffer rather than retaliate. Deprive the oppressor of a situation where a show of force is effective. Be willing to undergo the penalty of breaking unjust laws. Seek the oppressor's transformation. These are the actions of a courageous person. These are the actions of Bernard Caleri. Thank you.