JU's Resident Terrorist Commits Sedition
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
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.
"
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.
"
yeah right.