Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

And see here for a site which links to a PDF download of John's outstanding speech given in the presence of the unspeakable Ruddock at the Law Asia conference earlier this year.

All we are witnessing is the inevitable course of the democratic-socialist state(s)over time.

Our headlong rush to totalitarianism will not cease until people realise that the state is not necessary for a properly functioning society to operate.

C Parsons – why does the choice have to be “between human rights on the one hand, and security on the other”? Is it not possible have both? Do they have to be mutually exclusive?

I agree that people need to be wary of dictatorships that profess to care about “human rights”, especially since dictatorships, without exception, have to infringe human rights such as free speech in order to endure. Dictatorships don’t have a great track record on human rights in general. But I don’t see how your example is relevant to the argument that human rights are being unduly infringed upon in Australia and other Western countries in the name of ‘security’.

I totally agree with you that “some sense of proportion has to inform the choice”, but surely that is the point being made in this article. Howard’s glib line that “the most important human right is the right to stay alive” (or words to that effect) is not a robust argument to support whatever draconian laws he decides are necessary to keep Australia “secure”. Given that the ‘war on terror’ has now assumed the Orwellian dimensions of permanent war, are you prepared to trade off all your human rights bar the right to stay alive, for the rest of your life?

None of us want to be blown up by a suicide bomber, but surely we have to ask a couple of questions, such as: can the new anti-terrors be justified? Doesn’t the Government have to persuade us that “preventative detention”, without charge, is likely to prevent terrorism to the extent that it justifies overruling a crucial human right i.e. not to be arbitrarily detained? If UK police have permission to shoot to kill, shouldn’t innocent people like Jean Charles de Menezes have some idea of the ground rules so that they can avoid getting five bullets in the brain?

Are laws that make it illegal for me to tell my wife or the media that I have just been interrogated by ASIO for a week, before being released without charge because I was the wrong guy, really necessary for preventing terrorism in Australia? Should I really have to try to convince my wife that somehow I got lost on the way home from work?

I have yet to be convinced, and given the recent deportation of harmless activist Scott Parkin on ‘security’ grounds, I have grave concerns about the way we are going. What is your view on his deportation, C?

Pardon my scepticism about that sort of announcement.

Take for example this comparable announcement:

"A top United Nations official (Ms Hina Jilani) has accused Israel of depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the name of security.

"I would remind the Government of Israel that ... the absence of peace and security does not excuse non-compliance with international human rights norms and international humanitarian law."

Hina Jilani is a Pakistani human rights lawyer.

Below, she speaks about the difference between the elected former government of Pakistan - and that of the current dictator General Musharraf:

"The previous government did not care about a human rights image... this government cares about it because it is trying to use this image as a screen for the illegitimate takeover and its lack of democratic authority."

Without intending to exaggerate the extent of any danger currently posed by terrorism in Australia (it's certainly nothing remotely as bad as that in Israel), it is also plain to see that human rights don't simply exist in the absolute, universal sense that people like Ms Jilani suggest.

A standard of human rights which is in some sense "good" - even though its permits a dictator show himself in a good light - is of doubtful benefit if it replaces the "bad" standard upheld by an elected democracy.

This is precisely the core of any problem wherein the choise is between "human rights" on the one hand, and "security" on the other.

Obviously, some sense of proportion has to inform the choice.

issues that affect you.

C Parsons, you say, “This is precisely the core of any problem wherein the choice is between 'human rights' on the one hand, and 'security' on the other.”

I believe that human rights are an important part of our security. The stronger our human rights law the more secure we are. Any government that wants to reduce our human rights is taking away from our security.

Of course Howard and the premiers all agree on this. They're all shit-scared of the repercussions; terrified of the press saying, after a bombing, that they "ignored ASIO requests for stronger powers to fight terrorism". It seems in this political climate of fear that whatever ASIO wants, they are likely to get.

People who sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither liberty or security.

Oh dear C Parsons, selectively quoting yet again!

To begin with, that "light of democracy" on the subcontinent, Musharraf is little but a military dictator. As even the consummately incompetent Condoleezza Rice said "…we do expect there to be a democratic path for Pakistan". Just like her tripe about Egypt. Right.

But to run the full and proper quote from Hina Jilani, "who is a Pakistani human rights lawyer," and was in fact interviewed about "honour killings" (the subject of the Foreign Correspondent piece – not that CP would say):

Byrne (second last question): Does it seem to you ironic, that the former elected government entirely washed its hands of this issue, in fact it refused to condemn honour killings entirely, yet the unelected ruler - the dictator as some call him - is moving to curb these sort of abuses?

Jilani: I think it's very difficult to be impressed by any moves made by a government in the name of human rights when they think of human rights very selectively, and arbitrarily decide what human rights they wish to recognise and what others they wish either to ignore, neglect or in fact violate. (Also) it's very difficult for me to make a comparison between the two governments. Admittedly the last one was perhaps one of the worst governments in the context of human rights, that we've had. They not only wished not to take any action in order to eliminate and eradicate this kind of practice, they were found to have directly helped in one particular case. I think it is not ironical, it's easy to see the motivations and the intentions with regard to the political perceptions that the government wishes to promote about itself. The previous government did not care about a human rights image... this government cares about it because it is trying to use this image as a screen for the illegitimate takeover and its lack of democratic authority.

Read the rest of the transcript to see whether the thirty-seven words quoted by C Parsons may actually have been "cherry-picked".

I can't wait for the day when the PM is no longer the PM and gets frisked at an airport - here or overseas all in the name of 'heightened security due to the war on terror'. Chicago would be a good choice - they are particularly thorough.

Congratulations to our Federal and State elected representitives for making our homeland a safer place! I am no longer concerned about a terrorist act, not compared to the possible consequences I might face under anti-terorism laws.

Today The Age reported that Human Rights Watch "slams" Australia's new anti-terror laws.

Here is the Human Rights Watch media statement in full.

Australia: Anti-Terrorism Proposal Threatens Civil Liberties

New York, October 13, 2005)— New counterterrorism measures proposed by Prime Minister John Howard severely threaten Australians’ civil liberties and violate international law, Human Rights Watch said today.

"Putting people under house arrest for a year by a control order is tantamount to jailing people without trial. This is a shocking departure from Australia’s proud tradition of protecting individuals from an overly powerful state. " Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

The proposed measures, announced last month, include the introduction of preventative detention for up to 14 days. Borrowing from draconian legislation passed earlier this year in Britain, the proposed Australian law would similarly authorize a variety of “control orders,” such as house arrest, electronic tracking devices attached to suspects, and broad limitations on where a suspect could go and who they could meet. Control orders could be in place for up to a year without any criminal charges having to be filed.

“Putting people under house arrest for a year by a control order is tantamount to jailing people without trial,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This is a shocking departure from Australia’s proud tradition of protecting individuals from an overly powerful state.”

Howard has proposed giving the Australian Federal Police the power to hold people for 48 hours as “preventative detention” and has asked state and territory leaders to enact legislation allowing state police to detain people for up to 14 days. Individuals held in preventative detention would only be able to contact their families and employers to let them know that they are safe, but may be unable to explain where they are, why they are being held, or how they can be contacted. The government claims that detained individuals would have access to a lawyer, but all communications with the lawyer would be monitored by the government, threatening the basic principles of confidentiality necessary for an effective legal defense.

Under the proposed measures, courts would be responsible for authorizing “control orders,” but judges would only be allowed to decide if, “on the balance of probabilities,” the restrictions seem “reasonably necessary” for the purpose of protecting the public from a “terrorist act.” The balance of probabilities test is much weaker than that of “beyond reasonable doubt,” necessary for a criminal conviction. Control orders would be obtained from the courts in secret, and the individual subject to the control order would have no opportunity to contest the imposition of the order until it had already come into effect.

While a person held under a control order would have the right to judicial review, the government has failed to disclose what standard the court would use to reassess its original decision or to what degree the individual would have access to the file on which the original decision was based. Australian law already permits the use of secret evidence in some cases, which could raise an insuperable bar to challenging control orders on the basis of faulty or questionable intelligence.

“Locking people up or seriously restricting their liberty when they have not even been charged are characteristics of dictatorship, not a democracy,” said Adams. “Unjust measures are likely to alienate the very communities whose cooperation is vital to an effective counterterrorism strategy through the criminal justice system.”

Human Rights Watch said that serious questions remain as to how the proposed restrictions would be implemented. It is unclear whether these measures could be imposed cumulatively, whether the harm to an individual would be balanced against the government’s interest in obtaining a control order, or whether new evidence would be required to authorize a renewal. Safeguards proposed thus far by the government do not sufficiently mitigate the serious restrictions proposed on the rights to liberty, due process, speedy trial as well as freedom of movement, information, association, assembly and expression. A sunset clause has been added to appease critics.

“The government’s 10-year ‘sunset clause’ is hardly reassuring,” said Adams. “The Australian government should meet its responsibilities to protect fundamental rights now, not 10 years down the road.”

Many details of the proposed legislation, including the basic terms of new “incitement” crimes, remain unavailable to the general public, making it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of any additional safeguards that the government may introduce. Human Rights Watch therefore urges the federal government and the governments of the states and territories to provide ample opportunity for public analysis and discussion, including a full Senate Committee review, once their draft legislations are released.

Now hang on a tick, C Parsons. We have racial vilification laws which would deal with the Klan but is al-Quaeda a terrorist movement or a political movement? What about the IRA?

You might care to reflect on AUSTRALIAN COMMUNIST PARTY v. THE COMMONWEALTH (1951) 83 CLR 1. The subsequent referendum was not Mr Menzies finest hour either.

I am very chary of interfering in political freedom. After all, even the Scientologists have crept in under s116 of the Constitution.

S Marker, I can't wait for the day when the PM is no longer the PM and gets frisked at an airport - here or overseas all in the name of 'heightened security due to the war on terror'. Chicago would be a good choice - they are particularly thorough.

I know, let's scrap all the laws.

Let's scrap metal detectors and security checks at airports. After all no one would think of trying to smuggle a weapon onto a plane.

Let's also make it OK for religious leaders and others to preach to the young and impressionable that it's OK to strap on a bomb vest, indeed it's their duty because they are surrounded by infidels.

Let's also allow bookshops to sell books on how to be a suicide bomber. After all the people who read those would never consider doing it in a Western country, would they?

Indeed let's do all these things, that way when something does happen we can sit back and criticise the government and say they've been sitting on their hands.

Better living in a climate of caution and security than one of stupidity.

S Marker: "I can't wait for the day when the PM is no longer the PM and gets frisked at an airport - here or overseas all in the name of 'heightened security due to the war on terror'."

I recall when Malcom Fraser had to report to an American police station without his pants. That was funny.

John Pratt: "I believe that human rights are an important part of our security. The stronger our human rights law the more secure we are. Any government that wants to reduce our human rights is taking away from our security."

Basically I agree with you. The apparent levels of terrorist threat to Australia today aren't sufficiently grave, in my humble opinion, to warrant a major reduction in rights.

David Curry: "C Parsons – why does the choice have to be “between human rights on the one hand, and security on the other”? Is it not possible have both? Do they have to be mutually exclusive? "

I think in practical terms it is sometimes necessary to surrender certain rights in order to increase collective security, yes.

We in practice do this every time, for example, we step aboard an airliner.

We submit to the authority of the airline crew and captain. We conform to certain regulations and guidelines regarding what we can do on, and what we can carry onto an aircraft.

We do this, too, when it comes to fire-arms regulation and control.

Or even driving down the street in our car.

What's the big deal, so long as the provisions are proportionate and not onerous?

We saw after September 11 the strident critcism directed at US intelligence agencies and police for having not done enough to prevent the attacks? Likewise, we saw criticism of our own intelligence and security agencies after the first Bali bombings?

Are you saying now we should have done nothing extra?

Or could perhaps have done more without closer scrutiny of potential terrorists?

I am not entirely convinced we could have done more, and therefore not convinced that greater scrutiny and oversight would have prevented the attacks.

But if closer scrutiny of, say, resident non-citizens could have prevented something like September 11, yes, I'd have to say I would have welcomed it. You'd be crazy not to.

Say, for example, a branch of the Ku Klux Klan starts up in Sydney? And begins preaching hatred toward Muslims and Jews?

Should we, if the threat of violence towards others begins to become more credible, surrender the power to eavesdrop on Klan e-mail? Or their 'phones?

Indeed, are we perhaps in fact surrendering our own rights in order to protect the "right" of fanatics to conduct violence?

I should say at this point in our history, no, we are not confronted by such a choice.

But one day, it may become necessary. I don't think you can enshrine as inviolate one standard or model of human rights.

Do you, for example, think it is a deprivation of rights to ban al Quadea in Australia? Or say the Ustashi?

Perhaps. But whose rights are we talking about protecting?

Theirs?

Or yours?

Of course, we shouldn't have to become like Cuba with networks of neighbourhood informants and class-room spies to achieve an increase in security, no.

Do you think?

Michael Park : "Read the rest of the transcript to see whether the thirty-seven words quoted by C Parsons may actually have been "cherry-picked"."

"...may actually have been "cherry-picked"..."?

LOL

As opposed to not at all? What are you talking about?

Michael, did you notice I too had provided a link to the whole of the article?

Or are are you "cherry picking" as you say?

What's your point, exactly?

C Parsons, amazingly - and for the first time, I think - we’re not too far apart on this issue.

Of course there are times when we have to accept certain impositions on our rights for the security of the community. I accept that. But to use your own words, the provisions should be “proportionate and not onerous”. That is exactly my point about the latest reforms – I don’t think they meet your test.

The examples you provide are quite telling in this debate. Was September 11 the result of inadequate laws? No, it was a failure of intelligence, see here. Everything is clear in hindsight, for sure, but from my reading of this article if the FBI had adequately followed up concerns raised by their agents they might well have foiled the attack.

Same with Bali – there was indeed “criticism of our own intelligence and security agencies after the first Bali bombings”. Again, intelligence seems to be the biggest problem, not the existing laws. OK, so intelligence is gathered through surveillance etc, but why take out judicial oversight? Without it we have to completely trust ASIO.

And remember, the current laws come from Phillip Ruddock, who is prepared to turn a blind eye (see March 09 2005 story) to the torture of Australian citizens. He’s also prepared to deport Scott Parkin, a harmless American activist, on imaginary ‘security’ grounds, even though Parkin can walk free in the US. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

CP, do you think this kind of thing is “proportionate and not onerous”?

Malcolm B Duncan: "Now hang on a tick, C Parsons. We have racial vilification laws which would deal with the Klan but is al-Quaeda a terrorist movement or a political movement? What about the IRA?"

Well, then, would the IRA or ETA be a likely candidate for prosecution under our racial vilification laws?

I doubt it. Hamas, sure, from time to time.

But not FARC, hey?

In fact, even the Klan is careful enough these days to not fall foul of the accusation of overt racial vilification.

They stress, for example, that they oppose "Zionism" when artfully packaging their anti-Semitic bile, aiming to ensure that it escapes legal censure.

Goodness, they can even interchange some of their rhetoric with that of "progressive" fringe elements genuinely concerned with, say, the welfare of Palestinians.

And who also oppose "Zionism" amongst various other euphemisms.

Likewise, the Klan stress they stand for patriotic values - and Christianity.

I'm sure all their media releases and web site material is carefully scrutinised by their communications teams to ensure sufficiently plausible deniability in the event of a legal action by Afro-Americans, Jews or Catholics.

The sad fact is, they're not always as stupid as you might hope.

So, they operate overtly within the law.

But it wouldn't be lacking in Christian Charity, would it, to suggest that there may be elements within the Klan or National Vanguard or other Timothy McVeigh type organisations which would depart sometimes from the official guidelines and improvise more robust methods of "protest" than walking around in circles with big pointy hoods on their heads.

Like, maybe putting a bomb in the lift well of a government office block or whatever.

Nobody would want to deprive the Klan of their rights. But a warrant for the occasional wire tap might be handy under certain well defined circumstances.

Or would you rather not?

In the Age today, 'Farewell to Freedom', by the Former Chief Justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson:

This climate of fear is Howard's creation and instead of counteracting it with an alternative, forceful, intelligent debate, the Labor Party blindly accepts it and helps promote it.

The reality is that we have witnessed a complete and abject failure by Australia's politicians to provide much-needed leadership to this country and they have sacrificed our freedoms in the process.

Driven by fear and the need to act, we run the risk of a series of overreactions in our response to terrorism. This is the very dynamic that terrorists rely upon. What they cannot achieve by military might, they seek to achieve by stimulating our fears. Indeed, it is by our own actions that we are likely to isolate and ostracise members of our community who might then become targets for terrorist recruitment. It is also by our own actions that we travel further from our ideal of what a democratic and open society based upon the rule of law should be.

David Curry: "CP, do you think this kind of thing is “proportionate and not onerous”?"

No, on the face of it, it seems excessive to me.

And with respect to intelligence failures prior to September 11, you are quite right.

Whether new police powers - as opposed to a more proactive and rigorous application of existing powers - would have, or could have, prevented the attacks is moot, of course.

Given the intricacies of the case, it may be hard to say decisively which situation applied even in retrospect.

Though I suspect had some proverbial "alert field agent" been more fully on the ball and appropriately deployed prior to September 11 - instead of chowing down on Krispy Kremes while staked out all night in his Chevy opposite the headquarters of the American League of Wimmin for Sensible Shoes or whatever - history may have been very different.

While it is good that the draft is able to be viewed I cannot support Stanhope's views - notions that Iraq and Palestine are the cause for Islamic terrorism have been rejected even by people such as Pamela Bone of the Age - as she has said AQ's ultimate stated goal is a world wide Taliban-style empire - Iraq and Palestine are just convenient issues to use, never mind that AQ was bombing places long before the invasion of Iraq or the latest upsets in Palestine - then again, for either Right or Left, why let facts get in the way of a good ideology?

Did I read correctly that Section 104.4(2) would allow protective custody to be extended for more than twelve months? (A further term of twelve months can be applied for after the initial one has expired) There also don't appear to be a limit on these extensions so an order could be extended indefinitely (well at least for ten years until the legislation lapses)

I have downloaded the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005. I gave up on p 30. Apart from objections such as the effect on recreational boaters who commit an offence if they do not answer a question, and the life imprisonment provision for recklessly giving money to a person who may use it for or in connexion with, terrorism this legislation simply does not pass the "why?" test. It is unnecessary. All Australian jurisdictions have conspiracy laws. Someone planning a terrorist act is conspiring to inflict actual or grievous bodily harm if not outright murder. That is a crime. It is a crime for which one can already be arrested. What's the problem?

All politicians, State and Federal should immediately be urged to vote against this unnecessary piece of legislation which will simply fell a few more forests and waste an enormous amount of valuable Police and Judicial time in form-filling.

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has made public a draft of the Commonwealth's counter-terrorism legislation here (331KB PDF). So far I've only read the title page, which includes "This draft is supplied in confidence and should be given appropriate protection." The draft must be sufficiently firm to distribute to Premiers/Chief Ministers.

Another media release from the Law Council of Australia

Law Council’s Outrage at One Week Review for Anti -Terror Laws

MR4705
14 October 2005

The Law Council has condemned the government’s decision to rush their proposed anti-terror laws through Parliament, with a Senate inquiry being given just one week to review the legislation. As well, State and Territory governments have been given only a week to sign off on the federal government’s draft.

“Anti-terror laws of this draconian kind need to be justified and be proportionate to the potential threat rather than forced through by government with indecent haste”, said Law Council President Mr North.

“In the absence of an appropriate period for scrutiny and consultation, the government must be careful to balance its anti-terror measures with the important rights of Australian citizens.”

The government’s decision made late yesterday, means that flaws in the system will go unchecked with little regard for balancing the interests of the community.

Mr North said, “Australia’s strong democratic system is built on a robust, open and accountable system of responsible government. The removal of effective public consultation in relation to one of the most important pieces of legislation in Australia’s history on criminal law demonstrates contempt for the rights of Australians.”

“State and Territory governments should not respond to the Federal governments request within the week unless they are completely satisfied with the scope of the legislation and the safeguards and protections provided within it.”

“The Law Council strongly urges the government to provide a reasonable time for public consultation - the Australian people, State and Territory governments and respect for our political processes, deserve at least this much,” Mr North concluded.

"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero, and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful....

"Pity the nation that... will rebel not save when its neck is laid between the sword and the block."

- Kahlil Gibran

Interestingly the sedition laws could be used against those members of parliament who voted to go and murder Iraqis, turned away the TAMPA, and used refugees as a particular group to incite hatred.

All the libs and nats banged up for seven years under their own deranged laws - I would like to see that.

This is crazy, scary stuff - anyone would think Australia is being bombed every day of the week, that our cities and towns are being ruined and our lives disrupted to such an extent that we can't walk down the street.

Instead that is what we cold-bloodedly decided to do to Iraq.

I usually delight in pointing out the mistakes of others but in this case Marilyn Shepherd, I do so regretfully. The cretins voting for this rubbish are protected by Parliamentary Privilege. It may be the only liberty we have that they don't want to take away.

Jon Stanhope is to be commended for making available the draft of this stupid, dangerous law which Howard was trying to keep secret from us until too late. The bill would transfer to the authorities would give them a vast amount of power to disappear people for lengthy, life- and career-disrupting interrogation periods, or even to imprison them for life, on the whim of a policeman or judge.

As Malcolm Duncan mentions, there is "life imprisonment provision for recklessly giving money to a person who may use it for or in connexion with, terrorism ". So send $20 to your nephew, or give 50c to a beggar, without extracting a sworn affidavit that they will not use it "in connexion with terrorism", however "in connexion" or "terrorism" are interpreted, becomes criminalized and can get banged up for life if anyone wants to see them put away (for whatever other reason). And on this one, remember how mild an offence (representing your voters rather than obeying Howard) gets called "political terrorism" in Sophie The Indi Twit's lexicon.

Thus, EVERYONE rapidly becomes a potential serious criminal. This is not confined to the darker-skinned, or to Muslims. This is the conversion of Australia into an absolute police state.

As Malcolm says, we already have serious laws against conspiracy and violence, so we wouldn't need this lot even with "safeguards". Governments have had referenda turned down for trying to vote themselves much less power than this, so why should The End Of Freedom In Australia Bill get steamrollered through without a chance to examine it?

Please, though, Malcolm, have a look at the other 67 or so pages and let us know what other gems stand out for you. Stanhope could do us all another huge favour by letting us know what it was the PM said that convinced the Idiot Labor State Leaders to support him on this. Whatever the persuasive comment was, it needs examining in the light of day as well.

David Grace: "Did I read correctly that Section 104.4(2) would allow protective custody to be extended for more than twelve months? (A further term of twelve months can be applied for after the initial one has expired)…" Even a couple of weeks incommunicado with no notice is long enough to get out and find that the pets and plants are dead, you've lost your job and your partner, and the landlord wants to evict you because the rent is late…

That's a hell of a price to pay because you might know someone who knows someone who knows something of interest!

Paul Williams "While it is good that the draft is able to be viewed I cannot support Stanhope's views - notions that Iraq and Palestine are the cause for Islamic terrorism have been rejected…"
Digression. Let's attack the Bill, not Stanhope's other views. This is not the degree to which terrorism is about recent events in Iraq or Palestine, or Al-Qaida's megalomaniac fantasies, but about how the government of Australia treats the people of Australia.

Marilyn Shepherd "Interestingly the sedition laws could be used against those members of parliament who voted to go and murder Iraqis, turned away the TAMPA, and used refugees as a particular group to incite hatred…All the libs and nats banged up for seven years under their own deranged laws - I would like to see that."

Yes indeed, Marilyn - and ALP supporters of this evil nonsense as well.

MS: "This is crazy, scary stuff - anyone would think Australia is being bombed every day of the week, that our cities and towns are being ruined and our lives disrupted to such an extent that we can't walk down the street."

The biggest terrorist threat to Australia is currently the Howard government. No-one else is directly threatening our lives and liberty to anything like the same degree.

The Prime Minister has just farewelled troops who are going to Iraq to provide security. At the same time he is pushing for extreme draconian laws which he is trying to keep secret from the electorate; quite an irony here. Many men and women have died defending Australia in past wars to ensure our freedoms are maintained.

The Chief Minister of the ACT clearly has much integrity in wanting Australians to know what might be involved with the new anti-terrorist legislation.

Mr Howard received no mandate for the proposed secret legislation at the last election. The secret legislation, that can only be reviewed by the Senate for one day, belongs to a totalitarian State.

Dear Prince Peter,

The main reason I started posting comments on Webdiary threads a few months ago is that it is one way of making a public stand, of showing concern - anger - despair - about so many facets of Australia. (Of course, it has also been a fantastic way of engaging with a whole lot of like-minded - across a broad spectrum of interests - and quirky people!) I don't know how large the audience is, and I suspect that the most I'm really "doing" is making a minor contribution to the discourse. So it's a toe in the water, a way of becoming and keeping engaged until - soon, with luck - I have the time to do something more constructive.

As for who is next for the high jump, my non-Machiavellian Prince, the way things are going it could be (m)any of us. Maybe we'd better start some form of fallback communication, so that if anyone "disappears" in mysterious circumstances the rest of us can find out and do ... what??

SOWING THE SEEDS OF SEDITION

THE BLACK MOLE TERROR UNDERMINES THE COUNTRYSIDE….

Ah yes, the smell of freshly dug earth...

Marilyn Shepherd

“all the libs and nats banged up for seven years under their own deranged laws - I would like to see that.”

Yes, well…plenty of banging if you’re talkin’ seven long years of jug. Might be time for Kevin Andrews to make himself look…even less attractive, I reckon. And get one of the others to take him on as a bitch.

Then there was Paul Williams “Andy - just out of interest what would have happened to say the Franklin Dam greenies or Vietnam War protestors under this new law?”

Andy Christy

“Jon Stanhope is to be commended for making available the draft of this stupid, dangerous law which Howard was trying to keep secret from us until too late. The bill would transfer to the authorities would give them a vast amount of power to disappear people for lengthy, life- and career-disrupting interrogation periods, or even to imprison them for life, on the whim of a policeman or judge.”

“As Malcolm Duncan mentions, there is ‘life imprisonment provision for recklessly giving money to a person who may use it for or in connexion with, terrorism’. So send $20 to your nephew, or give 50c to a beggar, without extracting a sworn affidavit that they will not use it ‘in connexion with terrorism’, however ‘in connexion’ or ‘terrorism’ are interpreted, becomes criminalized and can get banged up for life if anyone wants to see them put away (for whatever other reason). And on this one, remember how mild an offence (representing your voters rather than obeying Howard) gets called ‘political terrorism’ in Sophie The Indi Twit's lexicon.

“Thus, EVERYONE rapidly becomes a potential serious criminal. This is not confined to the darker-skinned, or to Muslims. This is the conversion of Australia into an absolute police state.”

Shit. What are these Mengist*s p to?

So what now is a terrorist or an insurgent? Where is the sedition? Are you one? Am I?

Does sedition cover those Australians who didn’t flap their tongues in synch with the Howard conga-line?

What about when Dubya inanely decreed: “If you aren’t with us, then you’re against us”?

If that’s the case, then MANY Australian are in the bag, and should pack a few essential belongings and sew money or gold trinkets in the linings of heavy clothes. Transfer money overseas.

Those of Jewish or German or Russian or Aboriginal ancestry might well understand the significance of the knock on the door or the removal in the middle of the night.

Some of these folk once could commit sedition just by speaking their language or otherwise asserting their culture.

As could Australia’s early Irish settlers. Remember what happened to Ben Hall, Ned and hundreds of others hounded by foreign troopers.

And when the Australian culture, a fair go and democracy, were asserted at Eureka, the same foreign troopers as always struck them down.

In their “best interests”, as Webdiarist and alleged “Federal copper” U. Saugen, would no doubt declare fiercely as he rushed to attend a hanging or flogging.

But would “terrorist,” “insurgent” or “seditionist” not also cover everyone from Nancy Wake to the WWII and other diggers who marched for the Vietnam moratorium 45 years ago?

Wake, a known and self-admitted terrorist, would surely have been for the high jump with her fondness for stealthily killing France’s Nazi invaders with her pistol.

The Liberals loved Nazis, and looked to immigration as a means of escape for favoured SS men in the 40s and 50s.

Australia’s anti-Vietnam war protesters took it right up to the Liberal-Country Party and their police without flinching; were they seditious?

Not many, one guesses, but many Rightists said so.

Look at the footage of marching Changi or Burma Railway POWs, and other WWII ex-servicemen and women in any state Special Branch file marked “Vietnam moratorium.”

It’s different nowadays.

Special Branches are replaced by very compliant security forces, ruled by a Commonwealth executive blatantly averse to public good.

Who’s next for the high jump? Nelson Mandela? After all, the Kirribillis loathe him as a prime terrorist enemy of their apartheid pals.

Kindest regards

Peter Kropotkin
“THE RED&BLACK MOLE TERROR”
Woodforde

"d) to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution
of the Commonwealth or against either House of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth..."

Is that the same as criticise?

Andy - just out of interest what would have happened to say the Franklin Dam greenies or Vietnam War protestors under this new law?

I am surprised the PM thinks terrorists are so stupid as to not be able to skirt the new counter-terrorism laws. It wasn't laws like these that stopped the IRA or the PLO. All the laws did was to heighten public perception that the terrorists had power.

Once again, we will have experts making an industry out of what common sense says is an unnecessary over reaction. Make no mistake, I have no doubt there are serious threats from terrorism lurking in our communities. We have Howard and co to thank for that. What astonishes me is that some think the same people who got us into this mess are the same people who can get us out of it.

Malcolm Duncan: “I usually delight in pointing out the mistakes of others but in this case Marilyn Shepherd, I do so regretfully. The cretins voting for this rubbish are protected by Parliamentary Privilege. It may be the only liberty we have that they don't want to take away.”

Oops. I forgot about PP, as well. But at least it only applies to what they say In The House, doesn’t it?

This whole attempt at turning Australia into a Kafka Novel by stealth has got to be stopped right now. It is a perfect illustration of why we need a Bill of Rights as part of the Federal Constitution, so that only a Referendum can be used to annul specific rights. It took centuries of blood and struggle to reach the state where we find it difficult to imagine that we can be randomly abducted, locked up or interrogated for trivial reasons, unknown reasons or even no reason at all. The evident vulnerability of a legal system in which our expectations could be completely inverted in a few weeks is a disgrace.

While on the subject of legal overhauls: it is high time that the People of Australia really were defined as sovereign, and that any unconstitutional attempt to remove our rights was regarded as treason. The treason section of the Crimes Act seems far more obsessed with physical threats against the Monarch, the G-G and, as it happens, the PM. Please correct me if I’m wrong, Malcolm, but weren’t the PM clauses of section 80 of the Crimes Act added in an amendment only a few years ago, as a classic piece of wannabe-Monarchism by Howard?

Chris, your comments do indeed highlight the need for a lengthy period of scrutiny of the "finer" points of the legislation and the resulting amendments to other federal legislation proposed by this Bill. I have read through the Bill and been appalled by what I have seen on first reading. All Australians should be concerned about allowing this Bill to become law.

The time allowed for scrutiny by the Howard government, in order to pick up such amendments(as you have mentioned), by Parliament and other interested organisations or persons is an absolute disgrace and displays a contempt for democracy and all Australian people.

Is this where Margo and Webdiary could be in trouble?

The existing Crimes Act 1914 (available from link here ) defines an "unlawful association" as:
“30A Unlawful associations
(1) The following are hereby declared to be unlawful associations,
namely:
(b) any body of persons, incorporated or unincorporated, which
by its constitution or propaganda or otherwise advocates or
encourages the doing of any act having or purporting to have
as an object the carrying out of a seditious intention as
defined in section 24A.”

Section 24A of the existing act states:
“24A Definition of seditious intention
An intention to effect any of the following purposes, that is to say:
(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(d) to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution
of the Commonwealth or against either House of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth;
(f) to excite Her Majesty’s subjects to attempt to procure the
alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter in
the Commonwealth established by law of the
Commonwealth; or
(g) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different
classes of Her Majesty’s subjects so as to endanger the peace,
order or good government of the Commonwealth;
is a seditious intention.”

According to the draft legislation, this will be amended to read:
“(3) In this section:
seditious intention means an intention to effect any of the
following purposes:
(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(b) to urge disaffection against the following:
(i) the Constitution;
(ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;
(iii) either House of the Parliament;
(c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful
means, to procure a change to any matter established by law
in the Commonwealth;
(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different
groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good
government of the Commonwealth.”

I have no legal background but to me the replacing of “excite” to “urge” seems to lower the threshold needed to declare intent. In doing so, passive organisations like Webdiary could now find themselves in trouble. Can some of the esteemed legal minds here offer their thoughts on this part of the legislation?

Sshhhh... please don't anyone tell anyone that anything I've written on Webdiary was exciting... ok?

Most of it is, like this comment, quite sober and sedate.

I downloaded the draft terror pdf and burned the midnight oil unravelling bits of it. Overall, I thought the layout was pleasing to the eye, with careful attention paid to dot points, all primly cross-referenced. Nice font too.

I was inspired to have a go. Surely this can't be any harder than say, drawing borders for Middle Eastern countries, thought I.

I sent my suggested amendments to all Federal Politicians this morning (all personal particulars provided). If things go awry, maybe some kind person could forward my guitar, wrapped in brown paper, to Guantanamo.

* * *

(to all Members)

Subject: Draft Terrorism Bill

Dear Member

I am thrashing my way through the draft bill to the best of my ability. I have to admit that it's hard going for a layperson, but discussion time is to be truncated, so it's a case of needs must.

May I suggest the following amendments to the Criminal Code:

---------

1. No Australian Prime Minister, nor his inner cabal, may enjoin, assist or otherwise encourage the invasion of another sovereign nation where:

a) the justifications given are a pack of lies.

b) no regard is given to the will of the public.

c) the invaded country is already crippled by sanctions.

d) 50% of the invaded are under-age.

e) mass killing of the indigenes is the likely outcome.

2. No Australian Prime Minister, nor his inner cabal, may take their country to war in order to facilitate:

a) propping up a faltering global economy.

b) garnering access to diminishing oil energy.

c) perceived favourable terms for a USFTA, railway tracks, local weapons manufacture or any other commercial gain.

3. No Australian Prime Minister, nor his inner cabal, may take their country to war with an ally who manufactures and uses weapons of mass destruction.

4. No Australian Prime Minister shall compromise the value of one innocent life in pursuit of personal power, longevity, awards, friendships, fame, peer approval, nor even a tin badge.

5. Any Australian Prime Minister and members of his inner cabal who act in a manner contrary to the above laws shall be deemed to be War Criminals. They shall be removed from office and by the terms of their own rules, detained without recourse to legal council. Proper officers from DIMIA shall remove them to a suitable facility in Australia's exclusion zone.

6. Any Attorney General who seeks to exclude his own or his Prime Minister's actions from proper public scrutiny, by the introduction of mischievous, unnecessary or hasty laws, shall be deemed to be unfit to hold office and be removed forthwith, in utter disgrace.

----------

So there it is, a bit hasty to be sure, but you can get the legal eagles to fine tune it before the debate.

Oh, and don't forget to make it retrospective!

Kindest regards...

Angela: "'d) to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution
of the Commonwealth or against either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth..." Is that the same as criticise?'

That's the old version. The new is to "urge disaffection".

I don't know how (or if) "to excite disaffection" has been interpreted by the courts, but it implies that one's words or actions must have had an effect of exciting disaffection. To merely urge disaffection, on the other hand, is simply to try to do the exciting. So it's a seriously lower threshold.

Maybe if you criticise while talking to yourself in the shower, that'd be okay. But if you criticise openly, in, say, a letter to the editor of your daily broadsheet, it seems to me that you are indeed urging disaffection if you criticise the Australian government.

Now, doesn't that make you feel relaxed and comfortable?

Yesterday, I thought the government's slogan should be "Arbeit machts frei", but now I think it has to be "John Howard is Double-Plus Good".

ALL, the draft legislation is here should you want to read the fine print. Thanks to the belief and courage of ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope who does believe in democratic processes the Australian public is a little less naive than it was last week. The document is also available here on his site.

Now if the other state leaders who were so eager to rush into something they did not have the detail of will have the guts to support him... it could make a bit of difference to how this plays out in our society.

As for Federal ALP... well, we've come to expect them not to make waves with Howard... sadly they have a long way to go to gain credibility as advocates of the Australian public under the current leadership. The relative silence is deafening.

In a free society with an intelligent and educated people, I find it nothing less than appalling that such significant and far-reaching legislation can be proposed and could be passed without extensive community consultation. I find the 'just trust us' attitude of the Government on this issue to be arrogant in the extreme. We live in a society where such things can and must be debated. The Act itself is not an issue of national security. It will be a public document when it is presented to Parliament. It should be widely debated and examined closely before Parliament considers it.

If the supposed 'war on terror' is really a battle against fundamentalist thinking that wants to impose a particular ideology on the world's peoples and restrict the freedoms of liberal democracies - as we are repeatedly told - then the fundamentalists don't need to act against us if we are ready and willing to surrender hard-won rights ourselves through draconian legislation such as this, without fully debating the issues.

I am encouraging all of my family and friends to write to their Senators asking them to consider these issues very carefully. I hope this would not constitute 'seditious intention' as defined in the Act, since it may encourage them towards 'disaffection with the Government of the Commonwealth.'

Andy, historically this is analogous to how the McCarthy era started... and it took years to get rid of it and it ruined many people's lives. This type of thinking and this type of legislation is indeed dangerous to all Australians regardless of race, creed, colour, culture or political persuasion. In the wrong hands and the wrong philosophies (Coalition OR Labor) it could lead to serious abuses, easily. If it becomes law it will take ENORMOUS efforts to undo it.

And if it becomes law the terrorists have indeed won!

We live in an increasingly perverse world.

Andy Christie: "Oops. I forgot about PP, as well. But at least it only applies to what they say In The House, doesn’t it?"

No. To explain fully would take a separate article. I don't have time now.

To all those expressing their revulsion at this Bill, it really is time to man the barricades: it MUST be defeated.

It depends when they ram it through, but the Senate is not due to sit again until 7 November. I should have time to give more thorough attention to it the week after next (complex trial next week). Meanwhile, man the faxes, tell your friends and bombard your MPs.

We are actually making considerable headway on the Cross-city Tunnel here in Sydney. This could be a similarly successful cause. It certainly deserves to be.

Fiona Reynolds, I know what I'm going to do - take nonviolent action against the spy base at Pine Gap, and press the boundaries before they start disappearing the dissidents.

BTW don't give up hope. Even Pinochet was brought undone by a courageous population using nonviolence techniques.

I've read the Bill, and dread the sedition sections, but I still don't understand it. Paul Williams' question is a good one.

I'm even more concerned about the power to enter dwellings without warrant and shoot the occupants (so long as it's reasonably necessary of course). That's the one we'll get those bloody Muslims with.

This morning: "Council for Civil Liberties NSW president Cameron Murphy said he was shocked at the powers to be given to police.

He said they would let the Government take action against anyone who simply opposed it on issues such as the war in Iraq."

It is time for ALL Weddiary contributors of all persuasions to write to their political members urging a proper discussion of this draft. As drafted this could be abused by ANY Australian government, present or future.

Correction to my post last night. ALP did say this but it is still pretty palid and where is Kim in all of this?

Thanks Chris Shaw for a classic reframing of the situation. Of course Howard is the real terrorist. By any reading of the legislation, he should be hoist on his own petard and jailed.

If we just look at the staus quo, we might be fooled into thinking he has all the power. But NO!

Howard's power is based on our ignorance, inactivity and complacency. He has no real power because real power is being able to give it away. What he does have is a "Mini Me" mentality whereby he latches on to the tried and true methods of propaganda. He manipulates Australian icons - words and images that speak to our deepest sense of identity, empowerment and autonomy. Hence the focus on the ANZAC tradition, and cricket and the inviolability of our borders/land. We are all aware now of how he does this. Remember George Lukoff's treatise about how the Right uses language to steal the moral high ground.

I asked for Bryan to contact me on the Scott Parkin thread because I want to begin dissent here, in the community where I live. However, I feel time is running out. This is an opportune time for terrorist activity designed to galvanise the bulk of public support for Howard, thus justifying extremist positions on both sides. We are piggy in the middle between those who would undermine our freedoms from without and those who would do it from within.

I really want to be involved as well in opposing these totalitarian laws. If these aren't defeated we will be living in a place that can very easily become a police state. I never thought that our wonderful country would descend to this.

I'm also amazed at the number of people who know things are desperately wrong, but are in despair at what to do about it. These are people who in the past were confident that they could make changes in a political way and that our system could be modified to overcome the problems they were concerned about. Many (including me) are wondering whether our political system is broken beyond repair. Is this a seditious thought? What happens if we work to build a different political system?

Graeme George writes: "If the supposed 'war on terror' is really a battle against fundamentalist thinking that wants to impose a particular ideology on the world's peoples and restrict the freedoms of liberal democracies - as we are repeatedly told..."

Are, but therein lies the rub.

I think it’s fairly clear that’s just the WoT narrative for the credulous.

Open consideration, without fear or favour, of alternative theories that more adequately explain the intensifying and very real worldwide War on Civil Liberties is a high priority.

That’s why parallel moves to restrict free speech – including the Webdiary approach of censoring rational, factually-based posts in order to shield various categories of humanity from accusations of bad-faith and gross crimes, while other categories of humanity are freely and routinely accused of the most dastardly crimes and denied due process – are so dangerous.

Freely exploring the intellectual terrain of historical and contemporary affairs is vital to our future.

ed Hamish: for the record Sid, I think you are being ridiculous. Webdiary is not the Government. You flatter us to suggest we have the power to restrict anything. It is your ideology - freely spoken - that says we should publish everything you wish. We don't agree, but there are doubtless many places you can publish what you want. Hell, start a blog of your own. Why not? Meanwhile, have a quick look around at the variety of views published here, and compare it with other sites. Thanks for your continuing contributions.