Champas Socialist

Join Date 07/2004

JU's Resident Terrorist Commits Sedition

Am I a terrorist? It seems that I will have to remove the 4th article I ever wrote if I want to be certain to avoid jail for sedition.

Australia is soon to introduce controversial anti-terror laws, based on Britain’s new laws. And according to yesterday’s Courier-Mail:

"TERRORIST sympathisers who preach hate on the Internet will be jailed for seven years under tough anti-terrorism laws being considered by state premiers.
Any published material which incites hatred could lead to the author being jailed for seven years.
A controversial measure making it an offence to incite violence against Australian troops fighting overseas has also been retained".

A year ago on this blog I wrote the following about those involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal:

“CENSORED).”

All this was in defence of John Pilger. According to ABC Legal Advice, John Pilger’s comments that he made on ABC Lateline could be considered seditious.

According to Stephen Collins of ABC Legal:
"The first thing to be observed is that in relation to each of those offences, it is no longer a requirement to prove an intention to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility to establish seditious intention. It will be enough, in some cases, that one did an act which might promote those feelings if one acted recklessly and that result followed. Secondly, the requirement that there be not only proof of an incitement to violence, but actual violence or resistance or defiance for the purpose of disturbing the constituted authority, is no element of the offence. It is enough that there is the urging of “another person” to do any of the categories of acts prohibited. The Bill does not define what amounts to urging another to act in the prohibited ways.

Inciting terrorism is unlawful under existing law. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bill is intended to operate so that it will now extend to covering indirect urging as well as condoning, justifying or glorifying acts of terrorism or conduct associated with it, or even abstract opinions about that conduct. These examples of indirect urging might include offensive or emotional opinion about the significance of the events at 9-11, whether the terrorists involved had any justification for their acts, opinion about the validity of what terrorist leaders might be seeking to achieve, the desirability at an international level of victory against the American forces in Iraq (as expressed by John Pilger and dealt with later in this advice), or the inevitability of further terrorist acts, for example, in Bali, and as to whether Australian citizens should expect more of the same should they continue to be involved in the Iraqi war.

The Pilger Lateline comments amount to stating that both Australian Army troops as well as American or British troops who might be seen as occupiers, inter alia, of Iraq are legitimate targets on the part of the Iraqis to the extent that they are in Iraq. These comments have a more generalised application and probably say little more, at least in the context in which they are presented in our instructions, as stating that troops who invade the countries of others are legitimate targets from the point of view of the people of the country invaded. The comments made have similar characterisation to those made in the Democracy Now interview, suggesting as they do that defeat of the US is essential if one is to avoid other attacks of the US on other countries. It arguably suggests that the resistance to it in Iraq is legitimate. In our view it would be open to construe Pilger’s words as urging or inviting any person to engage in the conduct of the forceful elimination of Australian troops and their defeat in Iraq. There would certainly be an arguable case sufficient to place the evidence and surrounding circumstances before a jury .The inevitable consequence of the Bill will be to stifle the making of those statements, or even the reporting or repetition of them by others legitimately involved in public debate on such issues".

So what of what I had to say when I defended John Pilger? You might assume that I go unnoticed so it doesn’t matter, but don’t forget that Ted Lapkin, who writes for The Australian and is head of the Australia-Israel & Jewish Affairs Council responded online to my blog at the time. That discussion produced comments from me that:

"Pilger: CENSORED"

That's called being realistic and not taking one side. You know, trying to walk in another's shoes.

Both sides are doing horrible things. That is Pilger's point.

His Lateline interview impressed me because he was able to put forth a logical argument and wasn't afraid of contradicting the Government or saying things that might be perceived as unAustralian or supporting the enemy".

Lapkin responded by calling me a Pilger-phile. Even Cactoblasta may be a terrorist:

"CENSORED".

To read the original article (before I delete it): Link

Many journos have defended the new laws. The Australian on the weekend said that people like me are unwilling to address “the obvious issue: how many lives are they willing to risk to protect our political liberties?” I told them that “If I thought for a second the new laws would prevent the deaths of Australians, I’d not only sacrifice the rights of a few innocent Muslim Australians, I’d tell ASIO to throw me in the clink too The reality is that for all the chest-beating about being tough on terror, the same laws failed to prevent 2 devastating bomb blasts in London. You are unwilling to address the obvious issue: how many innocent Australians are you prepared to lock up in the name of being seen to be doing something about terrorism?”

But of course, they didn’t publish that letter.
"

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

By the way JU could also be construed as seditious for broadcasting my and Pilger's views. So much for free speech hey!

Successfully updated karma reason!

This really worries me CS... you know not much debate has gone on in the community about all this and they are playing on the fears of "terrorism" in order to make our country a police state.

Free speach? There will be no such thing here any longer as much as there is in places like China. Scary thought. Sign of the times I think, but it is only the beginning.

Successfully updated karma reason!

(before I delete it):

That's sad and unfortunate.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Good blog, CS.

'Freedom' is one of those nebulous terms, isn't it (like 'life' or 'rights' or 'intelligence') where everybody subscribes to the concept, everybody believes it is hugely important, everybody wants it - yet nobody can quite agree on what it actually is.

As for the excruciating irony of Australia - like Britain - supposedly waging 'war' in the name of 'freedom' while systematically undermining that very same freedom in respect of its own citizens ... well, it would be fall-over funny if only it wasn't so terrifying. At this rate, long before the governments of the countries concerned are even prepared to suggest that such a 'war' is won, there is a very real danger that they will have become, to all intents and purposes, that with which they claim to be at war.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Successfully updated karma reason!

By the way JU could also be construed as seditious for broadcasting my and Pilger's views. So much for free speech hey!

Fortunately neither the Australian Government nor the American one can do anything about the Internet.

Yet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Since you are the resident terrorist, can I have your autograph?

But seriously, it does raise some very disturbing issues of Free Speech. I dont know how entrenched that concept is in Australia, but it is the First Rule here, and so far that has allowed a lot of hate speech, and a lot of things we dont like to happen (crucifix in a jar of urine) occur, but almost without exception, left and right swear by it and accept the bad with the good. No rational person wants to touch it, for fear of breaking it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Zoomba

Join Date 11/2002

+114

Actually, the US Govt could in theory exert control over JU since it's run by a US company and hosted on US soil. I seriously doubt that would happen though unless we were sitting here writing out bomb recepies or plans for world domination.

It's funny, the US is so often slammed for censorship, or being accused of being a police state, or just in general yelling at us for stifling expression and speech and forcing religion etc... Yet, we have the strongest free speech laws in the world, and despite all the yelling on both the right and the left over things that should be banned, we have managed just fine in ignoring those lunatics. The rest of the world has a lot of ground to cover before it has any room to complain about the US.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh, I saw the title and thought this was about me... ...and that it said sodomy

Successfully updated karma reason!

There is always the Caymans. That is why the US government is smart enough to not even try.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But seriously, this is part of a disturbing trend. If I am not mistaken, Britain passed a similar law recently in the wake of the July 7 attacks. I hope Canada is not next, because I don't want to go through my blog again...

Link

That's gonna have to go...

It's also kinda sad the media (from what I gather in your article), that great bastion of free speech and heroic crusaders against censorchip (sarcasm, of course) seems to be on board the censorship train as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But seriously, this is part of a disturbing trend. If I am not mistaken, Britain passed a similar law recently in the wake of the July 7 attacks. I hope Canada is not next, because I don't want to go through my blog again...

Link

That's gonna have to go...

It's also kinda sad the media (from what I gather in your article), that great bastion of free speech and heroic crusaders against censorship (sarcasm, of course) seems to be on board the censorship train as well.

Let them pass what they will. It's kind of hard to enforce when the server in question is on some other countries sovereign soil. And if I'm not mistaken your blog is on a server in the US isn't it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Great article.

Ring the bell a'top every steeple! Spread your message fare and wide, ring clear and true with freedom as pride.

- me 2005

Successfully updated karma reason!

I too have been surprised about the lack of wider community debate about this legislation. The recent SMH poll that suggests a larger percentage of the Australian public agree with this legislation indicates to me that the larger percentage don't know what they're talking about and what is being taken away from them.

That I could be found guilty of sedition for stating my opinions and locked up without being arrested for two weeks is wrong to say the least. "Australia, don't become America..." never sounded more like an appeal.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That I could be found guilty of sedition for stating my opinions and locked up without being arrested for two weeks is wrong to say the least. "Australia, don't become America..." never sounded more like an appeal.

It may be reversed soon. Even if it was never true to begin with.

Successfully updated karma reason!

How wonderfully convenient that we are now being told that a serious terrorist attack is imminent in Australia, and the laws MUST be passed today.

This is a joke. It's a wonder they didnt pass them 3pm yesterday while the Melbourne Cup was being run so that everyone was distracted.

Bread and Circuses people.. while your not looking is when they change everything to suit them before we get the chance to say anything about it.

Freedom?

yeah right.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm not sure how elastic borders are supposed to work, but according to the ABC Legal Advice, the new laws are supposed to be able to cover Australian citizens overseas. The new laws are going through the Senate today. Stay away from trains and stadiums. And maybe restaurants.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And maybe restaurants.

How about just newspapers?

Sorry old chap! We are going to have to localize you! We cannot allow this to spread!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thanks everyone for your insightful comments. I think most of us agree this is a sad day for democracy. Unfortunately Australia has never had free speech ensrined in a Bill of Rights the way the USA has.

Hey I reached 10,000 points!

Thee are always restitions on free speech of course. We have an anti-discrimination act that I quite like...but it doesn't have 7 years jail as the punishment. And that's a good thing.

You know, I don't even agree anymore with what I said a year ago, but I think I should have the right to say it.

Thanks for the link LW. and support.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Unfortunately Australia has never had free speech ensrined in a Bill of Rights the way the USA has.

maybe it is time? Seriously. It really is.

Congrats on the points. Now lets get our shrimp on the barbie cousins up to speed!

Successfully updated karma reason!

There are people in the US that love the idea of "hate speech" being a crime, people being fired for using a racist terms, and basically villifying people for their beliefs. Oddly enough, they call themselves Liberals more often than not.

Frankly, if I could be jailed or sued for hurting people's feelings, then I think it makes reasonable sense that people could be jailed for soliciting terrorist activities. In for a penny, in for a pound. If one group is allowed to be hyper-sensitive, we all are...

Successfully updated karma reason!

In a way when truly democratic governments try to introduce draconian 'security' legislation I never find it that worrying. In the aftermath of genuine terrorist outages when terrorists have demonstated once again the inability of governments to protect 'all of the people, all of the time', politicians are naturally seized by a conviction that 'something must be done'. More often than not they go overboard; after all their basic helplessness in the face of determined death bringers has been amply demonstrated. It's also the job of the police and security services to try to accrue as many powers in dealing with these threats as they can get away with (this is the part that gets leftists so hot and bothered). It's also the job of civil liberties groups to resist any encroachment on already existing liberties (this is the part that often gets conservative knickers in a twist). Welcome to the world of 'checks and balances'.

In the UK Tony Blair is currently trying to get new security legislation through parliament. Today he was 'defeated' in a crucial vote (he actually won 300 to 299, but such a tiny majority was considered insufficient to proceed) and it looks as if plans to extend the amount of time that terror suspects can be held without charge from 14 days to 90 days will now be dropped. It also looks as if another plank of the anti-terrorism legislation, creating a new offence of 'encouraging or glorifying terrorism', will also be dropped because of widespread opposition, including a large number of MPs from the ruling Labour Party. Incidentally when you write, "Australia is soon to introduce controversial anti-terror laws, based on Britain’s new laws" that's not strictly correct - they are currently Bills or proposals in the UK, not laws.

In the end what should emerge is a set of realistic and workable proposals, a necessary compromise between the various competing interests, that will balance security and civil liberty concerns. It seems that the 'mother of parliaments' is still showing how it ought to be done.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If one group is allowed to be hyper-sensitive, we all are...

As I sorta implied. I have no problem with sedition being an offence. I even think that you should be able to convicted whether or not you actually inspire violence. Incitement is incitement whether or not people take any notice. But there is not a 7 year jail term and criminal record for breaking the anti-discrimination Act, and the new sedition laws go tooooooo far.

maybe it is time? Seriously. It really is.

I know. But the PM says it's not necessary. I didn't think so either til he came along.

Congrats on the points.

Thanks.

that's not strictly correct

Britain may be introducing some new ones, but Howard expressed he was impressed by what he saw already in place when he recently visited Britain. We are trying to increase our without charges period up to 14 days you see. We're not up to the 90 days yet. Thanks God. That's excessive.

In the end what should emerge is a set of realistic and workable proposals

They should but they won't. I'm not against stronger laws, including some of the new measures. But there are several new elements that are unnecessary and will do nothing to help, only to hinder democracy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

I'd like to see it go to the High Court though, as all such legislation inevitably has to. I don't think it will stand - 10 years of Howard and it will (some of those damned commies are still clinging onto life) but at the moment I don't like the chances.

I think it's all a little ridiculous and frightening at the same time. I mean, sedition laws? We're supposed to be a relaxed people. What happened to "she'll be right, mate"?

Successfully updated karma reason!

What happened to "she'll be right, mate"?

I was going to ask the same question myself. And, as Phoenix points out, how stupid does Howard think the Australian public is? His announcement about 'imminent terrorist actions' should have been treated with the contempt it deserved. We've been a potential target ever since we agreed to become part of the Coalition of the Willing. Howard is simply trying to play us for fools.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In the end what should emerge is a set of realistic and workable proposals

They should but they won't.

Interestingly Tony Blair today suffered the first ever Common's defeat in his premiership as MPs voted decisively against plans for 90 day detention. 49 Labour MPs, including 11 former ministers defied the whip to vote against the government.

Blair's comment: "The country will think parliament will have behaved in a deeply irresponsibly way, I have no doubt about that at all".

As long as such 'irresponsibility' is possible, I have to believe that any fears that we are about to emerge into an undemocratic police state is exaggerated.

Successfully updated karma reason!