apothecary Posted October 15, 2005 Tonight was an interesting night. I've been feeling a bit empty as of recent, lacking faith in humanity or some such I guess, with all bad stuff that's been going on everywhere. I went to the Cog concert with my friends Michael Daniel Matthew and Alison. They said some pretty interesting stuff up on the stage, and got me to thinking. For one I realised that when I have no faith in something like "love", then something is very wrong around me, and I should do my best to generate some love into my surroundings instead of waiting for some good to come to me. Well I tell you what, I love living where I live, I love the sky around here, the grass, my hippies trampoline, and a lot of other stuff. The ACT chief minister has leaked a document that shows the government has crossed a line that I reckon is gonna impinge pretty badly on those things (slippery slope and all that). So here's some articles about it, if youre interested I have posted the actual leaked bill at http://herbix.cuodan.net/stuff/draftbill2005.pdf P.S: This post is dedicated to ShiningPlan, I hope you stay a member for a while ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terror...8796712300.html Terrorist laws to lock up objectors Supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan or any country where Australian troops are deployed could carry a penalty of seven years' jail under the Prime Minister's new terrorism laws. The changes also allow for control orders of unlimited duration, secret preventive detention, the monitoring of lawyers, and life imprisonment for funding terrorist organisations. The draft legislation, disclosed by by Greens yesterday, details the far-reaching security regime proposed by John Howard for "very dangerous and difficult and threatening circumstances" in the wake of the London bombings. New sedition offences will put big constraints on anti-war protests, familiar since the Vietnam era, and come down hard on those advocating violence against any religious, national or political group. Those charged with sedition can argue they were acting "in good faith" but it is unclear how the courts will interpret this. The bill sets out new federal police powers to detain terrorist suspects for up to 24 hours, and up to 48 hours with the approval of a judge or magistrate. Suspects will get access to a lawyer to challenge the detention order in a court or complain of maltreatment. AdvertisementAdvertisement Police do not need to give suspects or their lawyers reasons for the detentions and can monitor lawyers. All conversations lawyers have with their clients must be in English or translated into English for the police. Police are prohibited from questioning the detainees but that ban does not apply to ASIO officers. Last month the states agreed to allow extensions of up to 14 days for detentions when a terrorist act is believed imminent. The suspect must then be released if no terrorist act occurs. Detentions are secret but suspects are allowed to contact a family member or employers to say they are safe but, "not able to be contacted for the time being". If they disclose the detention they can be jailed for up to five years. Under the bill, the Government can apply to a court for control orders on terrorist suspects who have not been charged. These orders include house arrest, preventing them using the telephone or internet and restricting their social contacts and work opportunities. Suspects can also be fitted with tracking devices. The suspect's lawyer can be shown the control order but not necessarily the evidence or reasons behind it. The orders can last up to 12 months and can then be renewed any number of times. Persons under control orders may be given "counselling or education" if they agree. The bill does limit to three months control orders on those aged between 16 and 18. Also contained in the legislation are wide-ranging search powers that will compel the production of any documents relating to "any serious offence", regardless of any laws protecting privacy or legal privilege., The new laws are to be debated this month, after the Labor premiers agreed to their broad outline at the recent terrorism summit in Canberra. The proposed laws have been strongly criticised by human rights lawyers and some Muslim leaders, who have described them as draconian. The premiers and Mr Howard insist the new laws contain sufficient safeguards to ensure they are not abused. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1483113.htm The Prime Minister has described the ACT Chief Minister's decision to place the draft anti-terrorism laws on the Internet as irresponsible. Jon Stanhope is refusing a Federal Government request to remove the confidential draft of the bill from his website. The bill is expected to go before Parliament in a fortnight. John Howard says governments should be able to deal with issues in confidence, no matter what their political stance. He says Mr Stanhope's action is disappointing. "That legislation was given in confidence," he said. "Let me say in relation to this issue that I can assure the people of Australia that the legislation finally presented to the Parliament will reflect the agreement that was reached by me with all the state premiers and chief ministers, no more, no less." Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says the posting of the draft by is offensive to other state and territory leaders. "The premiers and the other chief minister did not deserve, in my view, to be hijacked in relation to their ability to participate in consultation by one chief minister, for whatever reason he saw fit deciding to post it," he said. Mr Howard has dismissed concerns from the Opposition and minor parties that a Senate inquiry will not be given enough time to consider the new laws. He says the bill will be scrutinised in Parliament and will reflect an agreement he has made with state and territory leaders. "It's important for the security of Australia, it was unanimously agreed to by me with the eight Labor premiers and chief ministers, and we can't have any undue delay that the legislation will be exposed for public scrutiny and it will reflect that agreement," he said. Civil liberties Meanwhile, a civil libertarian says the Federal Government's draft anti-terrorism laws are more draconian than he previously thought. The Australian Council for Civil Liberties president, Terry O'Gorman, says he supports the decision by Mr Stanhope to post the draft on his website. Mr O'Gorman says he is particularly worried judges who are not ordinary members of a court will be able to issue control orders and preventative detention orders, making it difficult for lawyers to challenge the orders. "A judge will be acting in his personal capacity and not as a member of a court and that's an extraordinarily novel provision," he said. "But it also prevents a lawyer who's acting for a person who's been the subject of a control order or a preventative detention order from getting his hands on the evidence that was used to make the order." Mr O'Gorman also says under the proposed laws a person would commit an offence if they brought the sovereign into hatred or contempt. He says even though there is a defence if it is done in good faith, the laws would have a chilling effect on free speech. "The royal family in the view of many are a severely dysfunctional unit. Under this provision, if you rubbish the royal family you can be charged with sedition because you've brought them into contempt," he said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted October 15, 2005 I knew Howard would one day bitterly regret the fact that he snubbed Canberra when he was supposed to move into The Lodge as new PM. Canberrans have not forgiven him, even though I doubt many actually really wanted him there. So now is payback time. And they could not have picked a better issue to do it with. Canberrans live in a very structured society quite unlike anywhere else in Oz. So it is surprising that they of all folks would object to the new laws. Well, Canberrans are also mostly public servants who read legal documents and government papers all day, so they can tell when things are going too far. And now they've told us. THANK YOU CANBERRA! And while I am at it I also want to thank Barnaby Joyce. He is the best Democrat senator the liberal party could have never wished for That one man may just save us all from this out of control government. He is also the best argument for true democratic (conscience) voting inside parliament. 'Party line' should be abolished. Who would have EVER thought I would voice support for a National Party senator !! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted October 16, 2005 I think a question many people should be asking themselves (and one I am asking myself right now) is "what should I do to fight this? how can I help best?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted October 16, 2005 I think there are only two ways now. 1) the media 2) your parliamentary representative Lobbying both of these is the only way in such a presidential style government to actuall achieve anything. Write eletters to the media so they ares wamped with public opinion (and hence follow the dollar). Also, get in touch with the nearest coalition MP or senator (little point in contacting a labor one of you are in a labor seat). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted October 16, 2005 I certainly hope we will hear from Gwydion or similar activist types soon, he often made a ruckus about things I wouldn't bother with, this time I feel like I could easily get into a protest. I hope many others will also take to the streets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted October 25, 2005 Hehe Howard is getting his ass handed to him for this bungle. Howard's rating falls as Labor gains ground - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1489733.htm PM denies terrorism laws are unconstitutional - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1489935.htm Why am I bumping this thread? Well Howard has had to revise his fuckup bill, and this time he is sending the shit around on paper instead of in email "to discourage posting online". I sure hope Stanhopes secretary can use a scanner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heywood_Jablowme Posted October 25, 2005 Mescalito raises a good point about the constitutionality of these issues. Personally, I don't believe the fascistic ASIO bill would last very long in its present form if someone was to challenge the "speak or risk compulsory imprisonment" aspects in the high court: (Dawson J..........The right to silence is a convenient, if somewhat imprecise, expression, which conveys the traditional objection of the common law to any form of compulsory interrogation. It embraces the absence of any obligation on the part of a person suspected of having committed a crime to answer questions by the police or other persons in authority. The exercise of the right to silence cannot, of itself, amount to an admission of any kind or reflect a guilty conscience, and a trial judge should so instruct a jury where an accused has chosen not to answer questions whether at or before the trial. The trial judge should tell the jury that the accused was quite entitled to remain silent and that they should not infer guilt from the fact that he exercised his right to do so. (Petty & Maiden v R)1991 173 CLR 95 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/173clr95.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted November 1, 2005 Mmmm...I love the smell of unaccountability in the morning.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1495712.htm A Sydney lawyer whose clients have just received compensation from the Federal Government over a bungled counter-terrorism raid, says journalists may not be able to report on similar cases that happen in the future. ASIO and the Federal Government have agreed to compensate Bilal Daye and his wife over a mistaken raid on their home four years ago. Their lawyer Stephen Hopper says if the case had gone to court after the passage of the Federal Government's proposed counter-terrorism laws, it could be illegal for journalists to report on it. "If the new laws were brought in and it was an issue of preventative detention no probably not, no," he said "If it's an issue of an ASIO warrant, under section 34d of the ASIO Act, no, you wouldn't and the Government's got to be scrutinised for all of its actions and if they make a mistake they should be held accountable," he said. Print-friendy versionPrint Send to a friendEmail Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MotherShabubu Posted November 2, 2005 Mmmm...I love the smell of unaccountability in the morning.... Yeah, that's the worst bit: the attempts to supress any public and even parliamentary debate on the issues. Both in terms of the content of the bill, suppressing journalists and what not, and in the way it has been brought in. The government slamming Stanhope for releasing the bill publically, and now apparently cutting him out of the process (link). And trying to restrict the time for parliamentary debate (I notice labour today saying they weren't even given copies of the IR legislation they are suppossed to debate). Now they're rushing through parts of it because of a "specific terrorist threat" (link). Apparently parts related to "the description of a terrorist act" to "allow authorities to deal with the threat", whatever exactly that entails. Presumably allowing stronger action with more tentative evidence where normal laws would not allow such actions. And then the responses from labour haven't always been fantastically encouraging. From the support for the bill by the state labour premiers to some lacklustre responses from Beazley et al. As to what to do, I don't know, immigrate to Sweden maybe. Or, they say if you can't beat em, join em. So think I'll be buying a brown shirt soon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted November 2, 2005 Salvia is illegal in Sweden too Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MotherShabubu Posted November 2, 2005 Salvia is illegal in Sweden too I see you got your priorities straight Yeah, looking at their drug laws, maybe not Sweden. They've got a screwed up zero-tolerance thing going there. Apparently like 90% of the population agree with their drug laws, if that is vaguely true then at least that's something. Slightly harder to object to stupid laws that are at least in line with public opinion. And they seem like they are more attuned to the massive failures of their drug policy than here. There seems to perhaps be more of a possibility of rational debate rather than just kneejerk reactions. And they get to elect there officials so if enough freaks move there... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
