<< GAP GROWS ~ MAIN ~ NEW MOTHER MOOTED >>
VIEWS CONSIDERED
Difficult to decide if Australia’s proposed anti-terrorism laws—including new sedition components—are too tough or too weak. I mean, who to trust? Sensible Age commentator Tony Parkinson, for example, is in the “too tough” camp:
To prosecute and jail Pilger for sedition, whatever his opinions, would be a travesty: a cruel and unwarranted punishment. If nothing else, spare a thought for the other inmates.
But sensible Andrew Bolt isn’t too fussed:
It is true the new laws may make sedition easier to prove. A prosecutor doesn’t have to link the sedition to a specific terrorist attack or even group, for example.
But let’s be clear what all this is for. It’s to save lives, not to jail journalists.
ALP leader Kim Beazley believes the proposed laws aren’t tough enough:
“The sedition provisions in Mr Howard’s Bill leave the door wide open for those who promote hate and incite violence in our community,” Mr Beazley said.
“Mr Howard is rushing his anti-terrorism Bill into Parliament, but has botched this key measure for tackling the breeding ground for terrorist and extremist recruitment.”
Too tough, just right, not tough enough ... maybe Peter Garrett can help us decide:
Opposition spokesman for the arts and former Midnight Oil star Peter Garrett says the proposed sedition law could catch writers and performers.
He said last night that he had obtained an opinion from a senior counsel, Peter Gray, which stated that people involved in the creative and artistic fields would be “particularly vulnerable to the risk of prosecution”.
Now you’re talking! Count me in as a provisional supporter of the proposed legislation.
UPDATE. This seals the deal:
Dozens of prominent lawyers and doctors today turned out at Prime Minister John Howard’s Sydney residence to protest against the proposed laws, which they say are draconian and anti-democratic.
You know, if artists were really prepared to speak “truth to power” shouldn’t they be prepared to do so even if— especially if— the powerthreatens to get mad at them?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 30 at 12:38 PM • permalinkBut what do their wives think? After all, the other voters don’t count.
Posted by Jim Geones on 2005 10 30 at 12:50 PM • permalinkAh! So the fact that they’re ‘prominent’ makes their opinions much more valid than the common herd, eh?
Of course it depends on what you mean by prominent. I was having a drink with a friend yesterday who might be genuinely regarded as a prominent Sydney trial lawyer - if the opinion of his peers counts. He opined that one of those mentioned in the report is generally regarded by the law fraternity as a promininent arsehole.#7… Many (Most?) of those ‘prominent’ elites are considered, by the common herd, to be prominent arseholes. It is unfortunate that so many of them are adopted by the political machines, and attain positions of power. It is an unhappy situation when it comes time to vote, and you must choose between arseholes.
Opposition spokesman for the arts and former Midnight Oil star Peter Garrett says the proposed sedition law could catch writers and performers.
Oh…what a ......shame.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 10 30 at 04:23 PM • permalinkrhhardin—Sure, but if you mock openly, that’s a hate crime, which is prosecuted much more rigorously than sedition. Obviously much more serious…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 30 at 04:54 PM • permalinkThe ‘Prominent’ ALP leader is thrashing around, isn’t he? He must know that the awful anti-vilification Victorian laws have been eagerly taken up only by Moslems, to persecute some Aboriginal Christian pastors.
As #1 stats says, religious discrimination is already working in favour of entrenching special *unequal treatment* of Moslems women in Victoria.
Beazley actually wants to protect the *injustices* of Moslems wherever he can, while tying the hands of the Christians he claims to be member of.
Amazing incompetence is just the nicest verdict.The ‘prominent doctors’ were all wearing white coats, so we’d know they were doctors. Otherwise we might have thought they were just self-important arseholes. While they were at it, why didn’t they get some of those funny reflector-eyepieces-on-a-headband, which for so many years were the comedy shorthand for ‘doctor’? Or maybe some of those colorfulprint showercaps, favoured by hard-ass surgeons on popular modern medical dramas?
In the case of Philco Adams, we need to establish right now how many cops it will require to frog march him for his perp walk. I mean, heavy-lifting injuries are one of the most common workplace accidents…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 30 at 06:59 PM • permalinkYou know, if I was inclined to think a doctor knew one damn thing more about war than I did, I’da voted for Howard Dean.
And has anyone itemized exactly what legal advice the lawyers would be unable to give their clients? I mean, I’m very much concerned that they’ll wind up in the same boat as the Lawyer for the one-eyed sheikh who first tried to bomb the World Trade Center. Why, do you realize the fascist crusaders are actually prosecuting her just because she used her client’s confidential conversations to carry instructions back to other terrorists…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 30 at 08:17 PM • permalinkrichard mcenroe
Remember her case! Wasnt she “famous” for defending anyone with an axe to grind against the Government??
Lawyers are terrible when they decide that they are crusading against injustice. They know enough to stuff the system, but lack the world view to see the damage they cause.
Q: Whats black and tan and looks good on a lawyer?A: A doberman.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 10 30 at 08:25 PM • permalinkSo ‘artists’ who produce crap nobody will buy and who whine endlessly for taxpayer (my!!) money, ABC tossers and lawyers all hate the idea. The luvvies have their knickers in a twist and the usual suspects in the civil liberties and Muslim communities are blowing gaskets.
Hmmm. Let me think about this.
<sound of one nanosecond skipping past>
Sounds like it must be a good idea then. I’m convinced!
MarkL
Canberra#18, #19 - I believe that was Lynn Stewart. Unsurprisingly, she later turned up as a confidante of Mother Sheehan.
Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2005 10 30 at 08:56 PM • permalinkI am no sympathiser with terrorists (or for that matter with “artists”). I have however been around for a long time. What I haven’t seen so far in the media is discussion around what existing laws can and should be used and if they are not, why not?
The favourite diversionary tactic of a politician of any political stripe is to make a new law. Bob Carr set the international best practice benchmark in this regard. What politicians in democratic states generally do not like is to implement effectively the laws they pass. It is seen as enough to keep police honest and too much to insist on performance standards.
More laws are only the answer when the ones we have are inadequate to the crime but lets make sure we are effectively implementing the old ones first. For example, it is clearly against the law to assist in any way a crime. Blowing people up is and always was a crime in Australia. If you recruit, incite or equip the perpetrators it would be a crime already. Why do our police feel that the existing law in this area is inadequate? How many criminals have slipped through their fingers because of it? Much of this works on semantics. If an Imam preaches “jihad” what does that mean? Does it mean terrorist action? Since there is a clear link in practice shouldn’t the police have tested this in court or are they afraid to attend a mosque and observe it? If they are afraid to go to the mosque can they get witnesses? What they are really afraid of is offending multicultural lefties and doctors. How will the new legislation change this?
Let’s have less of the hysterical and ideological and more of the practical. It is critically important to get this right, not for a “principle” but for the safety or yours and my family against terrorists who are in other words: criminals.
Interestingly, it seems that anyone using the internet to “incite hatred” is looking at 7 years in the slammer.
I hope for Tim’s sake that they have broadband in Long Bay.
Ok, ok, it’s a cheap shot at a soft target (a tactic which Tim would fully appreciate) but there’s a serious point behind it. Define “inciting hatred”.
Define “inciting hatred”.
Everytime you open your fat, stupid, loud, dumb, self righteous pie hole, I feel incited to hatred. Of you. Specifically.
—
Allan brings up a good point about needing new laws for things that we should really be able to deal with otherwise. Reminds me a bit of “hate-crime” legislation for things that are illegal anyway, regardless of the victim’s identity.
I don’t know the current specifics of Australian law, but it’d be an interesting read to see an analysis of why current laws aren’t working. Did the old codes get pussified by the same handwringers who don’t want to insult the culture of men who abuse their families?
“Define ‘inciting hatred’.”
How’s this.?
Advocating the killing or assaulting people or destruction of their property for purposes of religous warfare. Advocating the murder of assault on people or the destruction of their property because they beling to a particular religion or ethinic group. Urging others to do these acts in order to gain religious or other benefits. Conspiracy to commit such murders, assaults, or destruction of property because the targets beling to certain religious or ethnic groups. Forming groups intended to do these acts. Being an official of a group advocating or justifying such acts publically, or raising money or in-kind donations for supporting such acts or advocacy. Advocacy of genocide (genocide being a crime under international law we might note).
Accurately quoting religious texts, in authoritative translation or in the original language, is not inciting hatred.
How’s that?
Allan in #22 makes a lot of sense.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 10 30 at 09:46 PM • permalinkI heard a funny story from one of John Howard’s neighbours (don’t know how true it is).
There were all these greens protesting outside Howard’s Kiribili residence. And the next day, there were a bunch of guys in suits and ties, and the PM said to one of his aides “Gee, the protestors are dressed alot better today”.
“Actually, they’re peopel here to see you sir” replied the aide.Michael - that’s a good definition. Your linkage to religion is quite specific, which is useful, but I’m not sure that’s part of the draft legislation. What we’ve got is something hopelessly, but quite deliberately, broad.
It could even capture the sort of hate spewed by enlightened westerners Sortelli, but happily I don’t think we allow rabid rednecks like him into Australia. Wipe the drool off the keyboard when you gibber at me, son.
I’m not buying it.
Firstly, they should make use of existing laws. Secondly, unless they’re going to commit to a war of annihilation against the enemy (which they patently are not), I don’t see why civil liberties should be restricted at home. These laws could easily be misused by Lefty governments in order to crush dissent. It may be okay right now when we’ve got some half decent leaders at the helm but God help us if some dickwit like Bracks, Whats-her-face-lezzo-pinko-greeno-poofo-commo or Beattie were executing these powers.
It could even capture the sort of hate spewed by enlightened westerners Sortelli, but happily I don’t think we allow rabid rednecks like him into Australia. Wipe the drool off the keyboard when you gibber at me, son.
Only when you stop inciting my hatred, you sanctimonious buffoon. But seriously, welcome back, Nemmy.
So, what’s up with you and Miranda Divide showing up at the same time? Are you guys part of some old-troll support group, where you only finally convinced yourselves that THIS time you won’t be such so ignorant and irrelevant—and in Miranda’s case, disgustingly hateful?
I mean, I don’t blame you for trying to recapture that loving feeling, given the show your side’s been putting on ‘round here lately. Lame. TSAW even lowered the bar on your psuedo-intellectual piffle.
What’s Miranda Divide like in the off-season, anyway? As risable as he is here?
Nemesis, it will be up to 12 good citizens to define what ‘inciting hatred’ actually means, after the prosecution and defence have had a fair opportunity to present their cases.
I’m pretty confident that 12 Aussie jurors are far more likely to get it right than any number of prominent activists or grandstanding pollies.
yawn…ahh…stretch…rubb eyes….
another day
another way
for"writers” “lawyers” and prominent “commentators”
to side with the enemy...rolls over and goes back to sleep…
Posted by knuckleheadwatch on 2005 10 31 at 12:28 AM • permalinkThe new laws are generally good, with some issues:
1. The changes to the crime of sedition are greatly needed. For example, under the current law, citizens can campaign for foriegn countries to attack our forces overseas with impunity.
2. The “shoot to kill” issue is the media gone mad, there is nothing in this.
3. I’m worried about what the control orders will become when the next ALP government gets into power. A person might get control orders slapped on them because someone else thought they told a racist joke at a private party. While the laws aren’t for that purpose, there is nothing to stop them being used that way.
On this last point, I think a good restriction would be that a person can get a control order placed on them on the basis of their theocratic beliefs, with the use of lie detectors permitted as confirmation.
#38 - Wouldn’t number 1. constitute treason? On my understanding sedition covers spoken treason, for example advocating the killing of Australian troops abroad, and is necessary because convictions are difficult to sustain currently.
I agree on point 2.
3. I’m pretty sure control orders can only be placed on those who are suspected of being involved in terrorism, not those who may have made racist jokes at aparty or even had theocratic beliefs.
Also, lie detectors are not proven to be terribly accurate - thats why we don’t use them to try criminals. Also, a control order is often needed without the person being aware of it, eg. tracking devices fitted to their cars - so getting them to come down to the local Cop Shop for a quick quiz on the merits of Islamic dictatorship would probably give it away.
I think the point that Nemmie was trying to dredge up is exactly what we were all capable of discussing on our own without his insight. There is some danger to new laws being created that are so open-ended that they could be used inappropriately. I wouldn’t go so far as to think he’d have that much of a double standard.
But twits like TSAW and Miranda? Oh, fuck yes. Never let them and their party get anywhere near any amount of authority.
Delightfully, as is the current trend, he’s just squealing from the sidelines while we debate things among ourselves. Since the old opposition parties have become that irrelevant.
Hugh White in today’s SMH has this to say:
They could start by explaining the problem that the new powers are supposed to fix. The Government seems to imply that under today’s laws they cannot detain people who are discovered planning a terrorist attack. It conjures up a scenario of the police and ASIO being powerless to apprehend people who they know to be actively involved in terrorism.
If that is the situation, it needs to be fixed. But is it? Under existing law, membership of a terrorist organisation, or any act of planning or preparation for a terrorist attack, is a criminal offence. If the police have evidence someone is involved in terrorism, or is planning or preparing an attack, they can be arrested, charged and held until the case is brought to trial.
Until a few months ago, the Government apparently believed these powers were sufficient. In 2002 and 2003 it sought and received substantial new powers to combat terrorism, and broadened the definition of terrorism-related crimes. But it did not try to strengthen detention powers. So why were those powers thought to be sufficient then, but not now?
That’s also worthy of consideration I reckon.
Consider the outlaw bikie gangs. Police have the power to arrest and detain but have a terrible time moving up the food chain (drugs).
These laws are targeted at a similar group, where being sent to jail will be a badge of honour “if” they get to commit offences. However being guilty by association will do more to isolate and “dog balls” them from hangers on and wannabes.
See a week or so ago the wife of one of the people targeted by this legislation (had trained overseas with a group), was so sad that she felt others in her community were avoiding her.(was the Australian)
Well cry me a river lady, you lie with dogs you get up with fleas.
In addition because it would be nigh on impossible to make the older laws retrospective without compromising the law serverely. Therefore the people who had trained prior to the last laws being passed were unable to be prosecuted under them. A condition which also applies to the ABC’s pin up boy David Hicks.
I know a little of the law as a Justice of the peace but am by no means an expert, which is why the media shit me so much on legal issues. They realy havent much of a clue outside ” expert opinions” from people with their own biases.
/rant off.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 10 31 at 05:11 AM • permalink#45 - Exactly.
Plus of course that detention would generate much publicity and would allow the individual in question to alert other members of the terrorist cell to either flee while they still have time, or carry out their proposed terrorist activity much earlier.
With the new laws, suspects will be able to be held for a pretty short period of time (the UK is going for three months compared to our two weeks) and denied contact with the outside world - therby preventing a tip-off.
I heard a funny story from one of John Howard’s neighbours (don’t know how true it is). snip “Actually, they’re peopel here to see you sir” replied the aide.
Not true. Australians don’t call their peers or betters ‘sir’. I tried it once in a public speaking engagement and it raised a loud titter in the assembled guests. Never again. This is a US anecdote.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 10 31 at 05:18 AM • permalinkI thought Laredo was a plum…
Nemmy isn’t it kinda strange that you are so keen to join in and discuss with such hate spewing people.Even weirder that you are permitted to do so by said haters.You are allowed a voice.Your own nastiness is escaping through the facade of sweetness and light by the way….For all the opinion pieces for and against the proposed anti-terrorism laws, there seems to me to be an acute shortage of debate on many important issues. For example
* why do we need to do away with the principle of habeas corpus which has served western civilisation so well for so long?
* what are the risks to everyday citizens if we have circumstances in which habeas corpus does not apply? How can we sensibly manage such risks?
* how exactly will the proposed laws reduce the likelihood of terrorist actions in Australia? Is that assessment realistic?
* if the previous point is arguable, are there other, more effective ways to reduce this likelihood? Of so, are we implementing those?
* are there effective rights of redress against any government or agency that misuses the proposed laws? Are these realistic?
One of the few columns that has argued issues (rather than set in concrete positions) is today’s piece by Gerard Henderson in the SMH. He makes some interesting points.
Some commentators have likened Australians’ aquiescence to the proposed laws to the attitude of Germans in the 1920s and 30s to changes in law made by the Nazis. I think such arguments are way over the top, but there is plenty of evidence that Australian government agencies are quite willing and adept at playing quasi-legal games to the detriment of ordinary people. The shameful treatment of sexual harassment cases by the Defence Dept in recent years is a good example, as is the NSW Government’s thimble and pea tricks with infrastructure contracts.
I’m certain the PM is very well-intentioned in all of this, else he would not have gained such a large degree of support so quickly from all the State premiers. He would do well, though, to allow as much debate as Parliament demands on the proposed Act. It’s important to the welfare of Australia and our future as both a fair and safe country that the eventual Act is well balanced.
Until recently, it seemed that a central tenet of conservatism was the basic untrustworthiness of government - the need for “small government”, freedom of speech, due process of law etc. were seen as counterbalances to the necessary evil that is government. It is interesting to see how many conservatives (not all, but it would seem a significant number) are willing to suddenly put their faith in the government.
(often while decrying the “cowardice” of the Left)
Scuffs—please. Only the most gonzo libertarians on the right and bandana’d anarchists on the left deny that even “small” government has certain unique and necessary duties, which include the protection of the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Or would you prefer to privatize the military? (Oh, shit, they’re increasing their market share again…)
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 11 01 at 01:56 AM • permalinkMost of the provisions of the new laws are already covered by the Crimes Act, but we’re dealing with lawyers here folks- enacting legislation os all they’re good at.
It ignores the simple answer to most of the current problem of militant minority yahoos inciting hatred/violence against the majority among like-minded fellows- revocation of residence/citizenship, and deportation.
If some cretin has determined that free, domocratic and secular Australia and its citizens has in fact emerged from Satan’s bottom and needs to be chemically disinfected, he’s welcome to that opinion- he can expouse it all he likes in some abandoned cesspit in Cairo.
Permament removal of likely explodey adherents of Allah is much more effective (and cheaper) than detention, and while the current laws have caused consternation, deportation of terrorist recruits and recruiters would cause large sections of luvviedom to vapour-lock.
Win/win in my view.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Debate is fine, but implementation doubtful. Consider the following report from the Herald Sun (by Liam Houlihan, religious affairs reporter, 25oct05):
“POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits. Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together,etc., etc.”
A government that can’t keep Muslim female bashers in line is not going to have much effect on controllint the terrorism afforded by the religion of peace.
As a side remark, I note that the self-absorbed elite, the journalists, artists, et al, are the first to worry about themselves and be damned the lowly user of public transport or the teen age school girls on their way to a bigoted chruch school who are the first to be blown to bits or beheaded.