Australian government unveils legal framework for police state

[ShiningPlain]

In the lead-up to his September 27 "counter-terrorism summit" with the eight Australian state and territory leaders, Prime Minister John Howard last week unveiled a package of legislation that goes well beyond the already deep inroads made into essential civil liberties under the fraudulent banner of the "war on terrorism..."

With the tacit support of the Labor Party—which currently holds office in all the states and territories, and whose leaders instigated the call for the summit—Howard’s government is proposing unprecedented measures that directly target fundamental democratic rights: the freedoms of speech, association and movement, and the right not to be detained without trial.

Once again, as happened after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States and the Bali bombings of October 2002, the government is seeking to exploit a terrorist atrocity—in this case the July 7 London bombings—as a pretext for sweeping changes to the machinery of rule.

While no legal details have been provided of any of Howard’s proposals, the main lines are clear. They go far further than the previous “counter-terrorism” laws. What is being prepared is the legal scaffolding for a police state. In the name of fighting terrorism, broad provisions are being drafted that could be used to stifle political dissent and opposition.

Control orders: In secret court hearings, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) will be able to apply for 12-month control orders imposing draconian conditions on individuals, such as tracking devices, travel bans and association restrictions, simply because the security agencies accuse them of being “terrorist risks”.

Howard claimed these orders would be similar to apprehended violence orders (AVOs), taken out by individuals to protect themselves against domestic violence. But an AVO ordering a person to stay away from a place of residence bears no resemblance to an order permitting the police and intelligence services to electronically monitor a person’s movements and conversations, and bar them from travelling or meeting with political or religious colleagues.

Preventative detention: The police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) will have the power to secretly lock people away for up to 48 hours. This marks a qualitative shift in the power to detain people without trial. Victims will be imprisoned not because they are accused of committing any offence, or even alleged to have “information” relevant to terrorism (as with ASIO’s already unprecedented detention power, established in 2003), but because of what they are suspected of intending to do in the future.

At the September 27 summit, Howard will ask the premiers to pass state laws providing for longer periods of such detention, similar to the 14 days recently introduced by Blair’s Labour government in Britain. In effect, he is asking them to help bypass the Australian Constitution, which bars the federal government from detaining citizens without trial for periods that would be viewed by the High Court as punitive.

Inciting violence: Howard is proposing to outdo British Labour by outlawing “inciting violence against the community”. The British “inciting terrorism” laws can jail people for their political views, such as expressing sympathy for terrorists or calling for an understanding of the social roots of terrorism.

Howard has chosen to go even further by extending the existing sedition offences to make it a crime to write or speak in a way that supports Australia’s “enemies,” or promotes ill-will or hostility toward any group in the community, including Australian military forces overseas. The maximum penalty for sedition will be increased from 3 to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Sedition laws are designed to suppress political and media criticism of Canberra’s underlying domestic and foreign policy. People could be jailed for opposing the war on Iraq, for example, if their views could be construed as encouraging attacks on Australian troops. At his media conference, in response to a specific question, Howard refused to rule out the possibility that journalists could be prosecuted for exposing Australian conduct abroad, such as involvement in the US torture at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, if their reportage caused reprisals against Australians.

Advocating terrorism: Similarly, the government’s unilateral powers to ban organisations without any court hearing—agreed to by Labor late last year—will be extended to include groups that “advocate” terrorism. This is far-reaching, especially given that the Criminal Code definition of terrorism is wide enough to include many traditional forms of political dissent, such as demonstrations where injury or property damage occurs.

Expanded police powers: An array of ASIO and the federal police powers will be boosted, including to use closed circuit television surveillance, secretly enter and search premises, intercept communications and seize material. ASIO’s interrogation power will be bolstered by longer jail terms for providing false or misleading information.

The AFP will have new powers to stop, question and search people on the street, seize documents and obtain airline passenger information. Its proposed “notice to produce” powers could severely affect free speech and media scrutiny. They could be used, for instance, to compel journalists to hand over their notes and recordings, including those made during interviews with confidential sources.

Citizenship: Immigrants will have to wait three years—an extra year—before being eligible for citizenship. Applications can be rejected on security grounds and more readily revoked. These changes will make it easier for the government to deport targeted individuals or detain them in immigration detention centres.

How such a vast expansion of the government’s powers, which already exist for non-citizens, can be readily used for political purposes has been demonstrated by the current detention and planned deportation of an American anti-war activist Scott Parkin. After three months in Australia, his visa has been revoked on “national security” grounds, when his only “offence” appears to be participating in protests against the war on Iraq and the activities of corporate giants such as Halliburton.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has refused to give any reason for Parkin’s removal, claiming that he cannot comment on “national security” decisions. If that is the case, then no one can challenge such deportations, no matter how flagrantly they violate freedom of expression.

A range of civil liberties, legal and media organisations have condemned Howard’s proposals and pointed to some of their implications. NSW Civil Liberties Council president Cameron Murphy said: “It’s very difficult to define when someone is inciting violence. It’s an absolute nightmare.” Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network convenor Waleed Kadous asked: “What about someone who says that the people of Iraq have the right to resist the occupation? That would contravene these laws.”

Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O’Gorman told ABC television: “If you grant huge new increases in powers without any checks or any limitations or any oversight, then, by definition, it’s a recipe for a police state.”

The new laws have nothing to do with protecting ordinary people against terrorism, the threat of which the Howard government has itself heightened through its participation in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. No new powers are needed to fight terrorism—every conceivable terrorist offence, from murder to kidnapping and arson, was already a serious crime before 2001, as was supporting, financing or planning such actions.

Significantly, apart from a vague reference to the July 7 bombings in London, Howard offered no evidence to justify the need for the latest measures. Asked by journalists at his media conference whether there was any increased risk of terrorism in the months ahead, he admitted that the government had no specific information or reason to raise its official terrorist alert level.

Even mainstream journalists, who have generally uncritically backed the government’s erosion of basic legal rights since 2001, appeared taken aback by the far-reaching character of Howard’s package. One reporter asked Howard: “[H]ow are you going to answer the criticism that these measures will go too far and that Australia is essentially being turned into some sort of quasi police state?” Howard claimed this was an “absurd proposition” but could offer no answer, except to say that court rulings would be required for “control orders”.

READ MORE HERE...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/.../terr-s12.shtml

[apothecary]

No offense mate, but posting left wing propaganda written like news is just as bad as the shit that the right spews.

As far as I know none of the labour leaders are happy about this, in fact I saw 2 articles last night on ABC alone with Beattie and the old Beaz' lambasting Howard.

I stopped reading the above as soon as I saw the bullshit in the third paragraph.

[nabraxas]

these new laws maybe repressive, they maybe undemocratic, they may impinge on civil liberties; but to decry them as the onset ov a police state is fucking pathetic.

it's "staw man politics"--ie: set up a soft target then aim for it, despite the facts.

Australia is so far from a police state, it's ridiculous to claim otherwise

& it weakens any political argument that may exist--it's falling into Howerd's trap.

[trixxy3]

One thing I never understood after the London bombs was the talk of searching public transport passengers bags (for bombs presumably) which was never logical.

Imagine it. You're prepared to die, sitting on a bus with a bag containing a bomb in it, wanting to blow it up when it gets somewhere preplanned. Someone asks to look in your bag. Guess you'd give it to them, just to have it blow up in their face, like some sort of last sick joke.

If it has/does/will go ahead that will be another well thought out deterrent.

[Rev]

The same situation exists with the invavsive changes to posting internationally

weve always had to sign customs docs

then they said we had to produce ID

i always refuse - you can do that

i say i dont care if they (customs) want to look inside, and it takes longer, thats their lookout - but i wont accept a nonsensicalk invasion of privacy

So far in this country you dont have to present your 'papers' or ID card as many people have or do across teh world under oppressive surveillance regimes

and i will resist being acculturaated to it

Say somebody posts a bom or anthrax or whatever in the mail - there are 2 points that make ID recording obsolete

1) if its a bomb itll blow up and destroy the evidence anyway

2) Any REAL terrorist wont produce or carry real ID - to do so is so ridiculous - and a very suspicious point in the major 'terrorist' events that have happenned so far

bot points render the carding legislation useless

EXCEPT as mentioned in acculturating us further to being 'carded' by authorities

i might be the only one but i still believe its worth making a point, publicly, of refusing to go along with the charade of ID cards. Its worth the little extra effort and non aggressive confrontation in the long run

[apothecary]

Yep Rev, you are fighting the good fight!

In America, identity theft is a major issue for one simple reason. Banks, phone companies et al (despite its unimperativeness, is that even a word?) all ask for nothing more than SSN to activate an account!

Keep in mind, the only people who need to know your SSN in the states are you and the government (any USians correct me if I'm wrong), but people are so acclimatised to being asked for their SSN by various large companies they'll hand it over at the drop of a hat (leading to easy pilfering of such info).

Saying no to handing over info that people don't rightfully deserve/need and protecting your privacy is I think one of the paramount responsibilites of a citizen.

[ShiningPlain]

apothecary:

No offense mate, but posting left wing propaganda written like news is just as bad as the shit that the right spews.

As far as I know none of the labour leaders are happy about this, in fact I saw 2 articles last night on ABC alone with Beattie and the old Beaz' lambasting Howard.

I stopped reading the above as soon as I saw the bullshit in the third paragraph.

um, how is it propaganda? just because it's from the left doesn't automatically make it propaganda. are you implying that howard ISN'T creating a police state? if you are, it would make perfect sense; being that you're from sydney. sydney and your nationalism; don't you even realise that you're the main target for terrorists?

hold up, what are you implying altogether? because i mean, who cares what the labour leaders are saying?? i mean, they're basically a second liberal party, and kim beazley has asked for an "australian" HOMELAND SECURITY...

[Heywood_Jablowme]

We need a bill of rights and we need it NOW!

Our freedom needs to be taken out of the hands of these cretins, please support the CCL:

http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/bill_of_ri...s/australia.php

Putting up with these manipulative, careerist morons for much longer will be our downfall.

As the situation currently exists, the only rights garuanteed to you by the constitution are the right to vote and the right to a trial by jury for a federal offence (and both these rights are somewhat "murky").

Anything else that is given by politicians with the stroke of a pen can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.

[ 28. September 2005, 04:45: Message edited by: Heywood_Jablowme ]

[ShiningPlain]

absolutely. the "democracy" we currently have is mob rule, and you've really got to ask yourself if you get anything out of it. imo, these sad souls (our so-called leaders) mainly want us to close off from eachother, and become nothing more than war mongering consumers; or sheep. and they also obviouslly want all of the free-thinkers in jail. it's all getting worse and worse, and i believe it's because australia is a part of the nwo.

Anti-terror laws raise 'police state' concerns

Muslim and legal groups say the Federal Government's new counter-terrorism laws will unfairly target the Muslim community and could lead to Australia becoming a "police state".

The new security measures allow for terror suspects to be held for up to 14 days without charge and the monitoring of suspects for 12 months through a tracking device.

The new laws will also make inciting terrorist attacks an offence.

The premiers of Queensland and New South Wales say they will examine the new anti-terror laws.

Anjad Mehboob, chief executive of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, believes it is a step backwards for Australia and the Muslim community.

"We feel that this is going to drive people who might be contemplating acts of violence and terrorism underground," he said.

Vicki Sentas from the Federation of Community Legal Centres in Victoria says the laws will erode basic civil liberties.

"It's clear that it's the Muslim community in particular that is going to be the target of these new laws, whose civil liberties have already been eroded, and will be subject to increased surveillance by the authorities with little evidence of any wrong doing," she said.

Ms Sentas says the laws are unnecessary.

"There's no evidence that these laws are necessary," she said.

"The Government is meant to be reviewing the existing laws, we're calling on them to review existing laws before introducing these new laws, which erode basic civil liberties."

'Police state'

The Law Council of Australia has called the proposed new terrorism laws un-Australian.

Spokesman president John North says the Federal Government is reacting to a climate of fear.

"These laws will probably allow large numbers of Australians to be held for large periods of time and investigated, and we would like to see what basis they have for making changes to our long-held criminal law," he said.

Civil libertarian Terry O'Gorman says he has grave concerns about the new laws.

"These body of law changes will give unprecedented power to the intelligence services and to the Australian Federal Police and it pushes us rapidly down the path of becoming a police state," he said.

"Because nowhere in any of these proposals is there any sort of mechanism that will be set up to ensure that these powers aren't abused."

Cameron Murphy of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties is also worried.

"My overall view of this package is that it is exactly the sort of package that is going to lead to a police state," he said.

Premiers consider

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he will examine the Commonwealth's tough new anti-terror laws to ensure they do not destroy the Australian lifestyle.

Mr Beattie has told ABC TV's Lateline program that he wants to ensure proper safeguards and accountability are in place.

"If you do some of these things, which are a very serious departure from the normal laws that apply ... you can erode our wonderful way of life and our system," he said.

"In other words, the terrorists win - so look, we're prepared to look at it, we're prepared to consider it.

"I'm not going to slam the door on it, but I want to know from the Prime Minister where are the safeguards, where are the accountability mechanisms, to protect ordinary Australians."

Mr Beattie says he is happy to work with the Prime Minister to boost national security.

"There are some things that we are prepared to agree to immediately," he said.

"For example, having a look at the definition of terrorism, to work with the Commonwealth to tackle money that's used to finance terrorism ... we've already been working on that - but we're happy to tackle those sorts of things."

Meanwhile, New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma says the State Government will consider the Federal Government's proposed anti-terror measures ahead of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting later this month.

He says the state already has tougher anti-terrorism powers than any other state or territory, including giving police special stop-and-search powers and tougher penalties for possessing or making explosives or weapons.

NSW Opposition Leader Peter Debnam is calling on Mr Iemma to cooperate fully with the Commonwealth.

He says more work needs to be done in the Sydney CBD and other high-density areas in the state.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20050...09/s1456486.htm

Bracks to give police new powers

By Farrah Tomazin

State Political Reporter

September 21, 2005

VICTORIAN police will be given unprecedented powers to stop and search suspects, seize goods and "covertly" search people's homes under new counter-terrorism laws.

The changes will be among measures to be announced today by Premier Steve Bracks and introduced in Parliament early next year.

Under the changes:

■ The Premier may in "limited circumstances" give police authority to stop and search people and vehicles, demand identification and seize goods. Police will also be able to cordon off certain areas, such as major events considered likely targets.

■ Police will have greater powers to search properties "covertly". At present, police must believe that a terrorist act has been committed to conduct a covert search. The changes will allow police to obtain a warrant for a covert search if they believe someone is planning an attack or is motivated to commit one.

■ Police will be able to obtain closed-circuit television footage, without a court order, to investigate possible terrorist attacks.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

■ It will be made easier to bring interstate and federal police into Victoria as "special constables" to help local authorities.

The proposals will be discussed at a multi-faith summit in Melbourne tomorrow and by federal, state and territory leaders at the Council of Australian Governments meeting next Tuesday.

Mr Bracks said he believed the plan struck a balance between giving police appropriate powers and protecting people's rights. "We must ensure our law enforcement bodies have the tools they need to fight terrorism," he said.

But a civil liberties group said the changes could do more harm than good. "In Australia, no one for … nearly 30 years has died from terrorist attacks," said Liberty Victoria president Brian Walters, SC. "This is just rewarding terrorists by inflating the risk, which is exactly what they want, to make themselves more important than they are."

Victoria's counter-terrorism package — which comes 10 days after Melbourne and Los Angeles were named on an al-Qaeda video as possible attack targets — is separate to proposals announced by Prime Minister John Howard this month.

Under the federal plan, police and ASIO would get new powers to fit terror suspects with tracking devices, detain them for up to 14 days without charge and make random bag searches in public areas. Migrants would have to wait three years, not two, before becoming citizens, and screening of visa and citizenship applications would be tightened.

Islamic groups have condemned the federal plan as a divisive approach that could make Australia more vulnerable to attacks.

State Government sources say Mr Bracks would be unwilling to support any national measures if they were not subject to judicial review and sunset clauses.

Mr Bracks' announcement today will follow similar moves in Western Australia and South Australia to give police new stop-and-search powers.

State Opposition Leader Robert Doyle expressed support for measures to combat terrorism, but said he would need to see the detail to ensure the laws were balanced. He also asked why they were not being introduced well ahead of the Commonwealth Games in March.

The Government hopes the proposed laws are passed before the Games. However, a Government spokeswoman said the Games already had a separate range of security measures that would be in place before the Games' start on March 15.

Meanwhile, prominent federal Liberal Petro Georgiou has urged parliamentary scrutiny of new anti-terrorism measures "to ensure that, in the course of defending the democratic values which terrorism attacks, we do not inadvertently betray them".

Delivering a lecture at La Trobe University, Mr Georgiou said he had "significant reservations" about the plan to allow preventive detention of suspects.

Mr Georgiou also hit back at calls by fellow Liberal MPs to ban Muslim girls from wearing head scarfs in schools.

"While a substantial majority of the Australian public believes that a terrorist attack in Australia is inevitable, and effective action needs to be taken against it, many are wary of sweeping measures that might unduly curtail their liberties and the rights of their fellow citizens," he said.

With Michael Gordon

http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terro...l?oneclick=true

New terror laws: No to Howard’s police state

Ray Fulcher

PM John Howard announced on September 8 an “unusual but necessary” increase in the state’s repressive armament, supposedly to fight the “war on terror”.

Taking his cue from British PM Tony Blair following the terrorist bombings in London, Howard is seizing the opportunity to introduce draconian new “anti-terror” laws, adding to a plethora of existing “anti-terror” legislation. The new laws will, according to many commentators, move Australia decisively towards becoming a police state.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation already has the power to snatch people from the streets and hold them incognito for a week on the basis that they might have some terror-related information. Those “disappeared” by ASIO have no right to a lawyer and no right to silence.

Under the existing National Security Information Act, the government can order secret trials of alleged terrorists. It can also order that witnesses not be cross-examined, that the accused not be in court to respond to their accusers, that the accused’s lawyers get “security clearances” from ASIO and that “certificates of evidence” issued by the attorney-general be accepted without question by the courts. Such certificates can prevent the court from seeing relevant evidence, but tell it what that evidence proves in the case.

This act is being used for the first time in the trial against “terror suspect” Jack Thomas. His lawyer, Rob Stary, has had to obtain a security clearance in order to accompany him to court and the prosecution wants the entire trial to be held in secret.

Now the Howard government wants more power to intimidate and hamper those it deems a “threat” to national security. Howard has said that key elements of the new legislation include:

* The Australian Federal Police (AFP) being able to obtain court orders to restrict the movement of people they consider “terrorism risks”. This will include being able to “electronically tag” people and restrict who they can meet - in effect a 12-month home detention regime without having committed an offence.

* ”Preventive detention” of suspects for up to 14 days. That is, people can be put in jail for two weeks at a time if they are deemed a “terrorism risk”. The federal government will need state governments’ cooperation to implement this as constitutionally it can only legislate for 48 hours’ detention.

* The AFP will be given the power to stop, question and search people in the streets.

* New migrants will have to wait three instead of two years to apply for citizenship. That this change has been included in an “anti-terror law” package speaks volumes about the racist inclinations of our government.

* A new offence of leaving bags unattended at airports.

* Changing sedition laws to make it an offence to “incite violence” in the community or against Australian troops overseas. This will carry a seven-year jail term.

Some state Labor premiers have said they will approach the new laws with “an open mind” and the federal ALP has said that it will support measures that protect Australians from terrorist attack. Yet even Howard has said that there is no guarantee these laws will do that.

Brian Walters, president of Liberty Victoria, says the new laws are being introduced even before the previous “anti-terror” laws have been reviewed. He told Green Left Weekly: “The attorney-general was obliged to conduct a review of the ASIO and anti-terror laws as soon as possible after last July. The fact he has not done so probably puts him in breach of the law.”

Walters explained that the new laws could result in people being imprisoned or “tagged” as terrorists even after a court had found them innocent of terrorism charges. This is because the AFP will only need to “consider” people a risk to obtain a warrant.

Mamdouh Habib, for example, who has never been charged with any offence, but has been harassed by ASIO and condemned by the government, could suffer imprisonment or tagging under the new regime. Zak Mallah, found by a court not to be a terrorist but merely “disturbed”, could find himself in “preventive detention”.

In fact, all those people subjected to the recent ASIO and AFP raids in Melbourne and Sydney could be considered risks and tagged - and not only them, but anyone they associated with, or prayed with, or went to the footy with.

The so-called terrorism threat needs to be put into context, said Walters. “More people die from petrol sniffing, or road rage, or domestic violence than die from terrorism in Australia. It’s not terrorism that threatens our ‘way of life’, but the passage of these laws.”

Dr Waleed Kadous from the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network told Green Left Weekly: “The new laws will completely eclipse the original legislation. The civil rights of all Australians will be under threat, particularly our freedom of speech. If these laws go through, it will be illegal to say that the Iraqis should resist the occupation.”

Kadous added: “These laws are broad and discriminatory, and the Muslim community will be adversely affected. The announced control orders do things to suspected terrorists that are not done to convicted murderers. There was zero community consultation about these new ‘anti-terror' laws, and the PM didn’t even consult his own backbenchers.”

Margarita Windisch, a spokesperson for Stop the War in Melbourne, says the new laws are a dangerous attack on free speech. “If I say that I oppose the occupation of Iraq and that I think the insurgency is right to resist the occupation, then am I guilty of ‘inciting violence against Australian troops overseas’? Probably. Yet even the United Nations says that an occupied people has the right to resist.”

Windisch believes the laws will be used by the government to intimidate into silence opponents of its imperialist wars. “They will try to criminalise dissent and criminalise the truth”, she said. “The government lied about weapons of mass destruction. It lied about al Qaeda’s link to Iraq. It lied about Australian troops’ involvement in torture in Iraq. Now it can use the law to silence those who tell the truth about Iraq.”

From Green Left Weekly, September 14, 2005.

[macro]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terror...7586832597.html

It's won backing, with a 5 year review, and 10 year sunset.

[ShiningPlain]

i can't see that article man, because i'm not a member.

'Appalling' anti-terrorism laws draw criticism

Civil libertarians and lawyers say the anti-terrorism laws agreed upon by the Commonwealth and the states today are appalling.

Under the laws, which Prime Minister John Howard describes as "unusual", state and territory police will be given extra tracking powers and will be able to detain terrorism suspects for up to two weeks without charge.

The laws will also make provisions for a review after five years and a sunset clause at 10 years.

Terry O'Gorman, of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties, says the agreement is an appalling state of affairs.

"I think it just shows what a sorry state civil liberties have reached in this country that someone will now be able to be held for 14 days without charge on the basis that the premiers have been secretly briefed by ASIO," he said.

Patrick Emerton, who is an assistant law lecturer at Monash University, says the definition of terrorism under Australia law is too broad.

"If someone sent money to Aceh to help with tsunami relief and that money ended up in the hands of the rebels in Aceh who control significant parts of Aceh, the person who sent the money could be a terrorist," Mr Emerton said.

"If someone went there and taught those rebels how to rebuild houses that person would be training with terrorists and so are criminals under Australian law."

Australian Lawyers Alliance president Richard Faulks says the laws are totalitarian and un-Australian.

"Depending on what the final version is, I think it is a retrograde step, and one that we didn't need," Mr Faulks said.

"Australians value their freedom and even though everyone is concerned about terrorism and rightly so, there are steps that can be taken that are still consistent with proper safeguards which are part of our everyday life."

Balance

However, the state and territory leaders say the laws strike a balance between security and personal freedoms.

New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma says he is satisfied the new laws will better protect the community from terrorism without harming civil liberties.

"We've proven that it is possible to get tougher laws on terror and at the same time protect individual liberties," Mr Iemma said.

"The protections the safeguards that are part of this package are important to ... our way of life."

Some state leaders, such as ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, went to today's Council of Australian Government meeting unconvinced of the need for the laws.

But a briefing from the Australian Security and Intelligence Agency (ASIO) and the Office of National Assessments (ONA) has changed their minds.

Mr Stanhope says his fears over the impact of the laws on civil liberties have changed.

"Faced with blunt advice from the head of ASIO, from the head of the Office of National Assessments and from the head of the Australian Federal Police that we do indeed face grave circumstances in Australia, it really isn't possible for any head of government to turn away," he said.

"There are people within Australia that our officials have grave concerns about in relation to their intentions.

"The situation is serious."

The legislation will be drafted within weeks.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20050...09/s1469669.htm

[nabraxas]

a "bill of rights" can actually be a very dodgy thing.

a bill ov rights sets out all the things a citizen can & can not do.

the rule ov law (which is what we have instead ov a bill ov rights) sets out all the things a citizen can not do.

there is a greater degree ov freedom there because it presumes that anything not outlawed is legal.

[waterdragon]

nature boy:

"There are people within Australia that our officials have grave concerns about in relation to their intentions.

so are these people actually guilty of something? if so go and arrest the fuckers. whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? does anyone really think that these laws, like all others before them, will not be abused? locking people up without charge, what fucking country are we living in?

incredible that the fucking idiot beazley was going for something even more draconian than howard, who is he trying to impress?

[Heywood_Jablowme]

a "bill of rights" can actually be a very dodgy thing.

As opposed to the Bill of Nothing that currently exists?

a bill ov rights sets out all the things a citizen can & can not do.

Incorrect. What is the point in having a "Bill of rights that you don't have"?

the rule ov law (which is what we have instead ov a bill ov rights) sets out all the things a citizen can not do.

What is given with the stroke of a pen, can be taken with the stroke of a pen.

there is a greater degree ov freedom there because it presumes that anything not outlawed is legal.

Do you have any idea how many laws there actually are, and how multilayered and muddied their interpretations are?

I would add that there is a greater degree of oppression, as anything NOT taken out of the hands of politicians can be made illegal with the stroke of a pen.

so are these people actually guilty of something? if so go and arrest the fuckers. whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? does anyone really think that these laws, like all others before them, will not be abused? locking people up without charge, what fucking country are we living in?

They will be deemed guilty of whatever politicians decide is a crime that day, unless we bind their hands with a conclusive and broad reaching Bill of Rights.

Please, lets not let this important thread get dragged down into Left and Right interpretations. Individual rights are essential for all of us.

[ 29. September 2005, 02:54: Message edited by: Heywood_Jablowme ]

[trixxy3]

waterdragon:

so are these people actually guilty of something? if so go and arrest the fuckers. whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? does anyone really think that these laws, like all others before them, will not be abused? locking people up without charge, what fucking country are we living in?

incredible that the fucking idiot beazley was going for something even more draconian than howard, who is he trying to impress?

Yeah thats what I've been thinking, how can you prove that someone is not a potential terror threat?

:confused:

Far too ambiguous to be of any use.

[blog]

I just seem to be advertising lots of TV shows to watch, but that's only because they fit so well into the topic at hand.

On UKnova you can watch the 3 part documentary series called "The Power of Nightmares" . I found it enlightening others may not agree with it's message. The following is a transcript of the introduction:

************

The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear

In the past politicians promised to create a better world, they had different ways of achieving this but their power came from the optimistic visions they offered their people.

Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly politicians

are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams politicians are promising to protect us from nightmares

They say they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we can not see and do not understand and the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. The powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells in countries across the world, a threat that needs to be fought on a war on terror.

But much of this threat is a fantasy which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media. This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created and who it benefits.

At the heart of this story are 2 groups. The American neo-conservatives and the radical islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure to build a better world.These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either have intended.

Together they created today's nightmare vision of a secret organised evil that threatens the world, a fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age, and those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

1700mb / 180mins

[ 29. September 2005, 08:34: Message edited by: blog ]

[nabraxas]

heywood--i'm arguing from a poor position here as i personally consider the rule ov law or a bill ov rights to be worthless, in terms ov personal freedom.

however, i still stick w/my argument.

a bill ov rights sets out all the things a citizen can & can not do. ok, i accept i phrased that incorrectly, what i meant was if something is not there as a right you can be stopped from doing it--ie: if free speech isn't in the bill ov rights, you don't have the right to make political speeches.

whereas, w/the rule ov law, unless there is a law against making political speeches you can make them w/impunity.

 

quote:

---

To be "ruled by laws, not by men," is the old expression. Now, a jury nullifying a law or a protester practicing civil disobedience is not engaged in ruling. Instead, they are doing the precise opposite: negating the instructions and actions of government. The principle of the rule of law does the same kind of thing, for it means that the authority and power of government and of individuals in office is limited to those spheres, those issues, and those actions that are specified by the law. The rule of law denies to government unlimited or discretionary power and authority. The rule of law is thus part of a system of checks and balances to prevent dictatorship and despotism. Because of that, it is curiously the case that you do not need to have laws to have the rule of law: for the whole system of Common Law developed through the practice of the courts in considering claims that someone had committed a wrong. The original purpose of trial by jury in the Magna Carta was similar. The threat, indeed, addressed by the Magna Carta was of the laws and judges of King John. If Magna Carta juries could not nullify the laws of King John, or ignore the instructions and rulings of his judges, trial by jury would have been a useless protection. But the Barons, in obtaining King John's pledge, as Lysander Spooner wrote in 1852, "were engaged in no such senseless work as that."

 

The jury is the last line of defense, the last check and balance, against tyrannical government, if, that is, it is charged with determining the justice of a case and not just with blindly applying the law as given by a judge. It was become a very interesting perversion of the sytem of checks and balances when, as we are told, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means but that we are then expected to obey without resistance. Since the Supreme Court has in general, since the New Deal, interpreted the Constitution to mean exactly the opposite of its original purpose, which had been to establish a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, but which now seems to have gotten us a national government of unlimited and plenary powers, which can legislate or regulate in any matter whatsoever, what we have seen is the destruction of the rule of law, through the arbitrary authority of an irresponsible court, rather than its preservation. When the citizen demands that the government obey the Constitution, and the government replies that it is obeying its interpretation of the Constitution, which gives it authority and discretion far beyond that overthrown in the American Revolution, then the whole idea of the "rule of law" has been turned around to justify the very kind of arbitrary, discretionary, and unaccountable authority that it was supposed to prevent.

 

---

Jury Nullification

[Heywood_Jablowme]

Okay, lets look at this more closely:

The rule of law denies to government unlimited or discretionary power and authority.

At some point between the passing of the Statute of Westminster 1931 and The Australia Act 1986 Australia supposedly became a sovereign and independent nation. How it can continue to remain under the control of The Australian Constitution Act 1901(U.K.), an act of a foreign power, reveals the true intention of the coup detat that has taken place in this country. Sovereignty has been passed on from Westminster, but has never truly found it's way into the hands of the Australian people, but rather it has been stalled at political party level (not forgetting their corporate masters).

ALL power now resides in the Federal and State parliaments. The checks and balances that formerly existed (Appeals to the Privvy Council and the application of Magna Carta, The Bill of Rights 1689 etc) are now deemed, by the judiciary, to be the laws of a foreign power, and not applicable.

A Judiciary that, hypocritically, gets it's head of power from a foreign act.

Hence, Australia has simply converted from a British colony, into a corporate one.

The rule of law is thus part of a system of checks and balances to prevent dictatorship and despotism.

In Australia, the opposite interpretation applies.

The original purpose of trial by jury in the Magna Carta was similar. The threat, indeed, addressed by the Magna Carta was of the laws and judges of King John. If Magna Carta juries could not nullify the laws of King John, or ignore the instructions and rulings of his judges, trial by jury would have been a useless protection. But the Barons, in obtaining King John's pledge, as Lysander Spooner wrote in 1852, "were engaged in no such senseless work as that."

It's important to remeber that The Magna Carta had nothing to do with the common man, and was a contract between the King and the Robber Barons (todays corporations). Today, it is mostly considerd an "historical curiosity", by the judiciary.

The jury is the last line of defense, the last check and balance, against tyrannical government, if, that is, it is charged with determining the justice of a case and not just with blindly applying the law as given by a judge.

Your only garauntee to a trial by jury in this country is for a Federal offence, and is not garaunteed any longer by the High Court.

Try and place offences derived from the ASIO bill before a jury and see how far you get.

I totally agree with the rest of the comments as to how they apply in Australia today.

A far reaching Bill of Rights, including the mechanism for Citizens Initiated Referenda, would severely stem the level of governmental tyranny we see today.

BTW, whats with the "ov" thing? Are you a fan ov Genesis. P. Orridge?

[ 02. October 2005, 05:25: Message edited by: Heywood_Jablowme ]

[nabraxas]

excellent stuff Heywood.

i have nothing really to add, i have only vaguely studdied UK politics, so i know nothing about the Australian experience.

it's not so much Gen i like as the actual Ov power

[Heywood_Jablowme]

Makes you wonder about the true intention of the Republican Referendum a few years back.

I mean, who really cares, or benefits, from who gets to cut ribbons at social events?

My belief is that the whole republican scam was an attempt to install the Australian Constitution Act 1901 (U.K.), by covertly "Australianising" it via a referendum, that was decietfully played to the masses via the ridiculous "head of state" arguments.

For some reason the word treason springs to mind :mad: .