Now NSW Labor’s latest outrage, putting sniffer dogs on public transport. A pattern is emerging across the mainstream parties – ever increasing surveillance and control over our personal lives and beliefs, coupled with the dumping of rights and freedoms we had taken for granted. No free market on this circuit, folks.
Today, Rebecca Saunders and Andrew Mclean on sniffers, an update of the government’s line on its terror laws and views on the matter from Jozef Imrich, Daniel Maurice, David Davis, Jess Rosman, Gavin Greenoak, Ian Farrell, Anthony Clark, Martin Oliver, Alistair Noble, Martin Davies and Peter Kelly .
***
Dog sniffers
Rebecca Saunders
I’m not usually one to broadcast my opinions in an open forum but I am amazed and disgusted at the audacity of Michael Costa in proposing to allow sniffer dogs on public transportation.
Do the words public transportation mean anything to Mr. Costa? We have not been told to what degree these dogs are going to operate, nor whom they are going to target – indeed, if there will be any discretionary measures taken.
I happen to have friends who occasionally use marijuana on a recreational basis, and I would imagine therefore that I carry the smell on me at times, so does that mean I will be subjected to the indignity of a public search for something I do not partake in, or use?
Where is the line to be drawn? Surely this does not do anything towards targeting the real perpetrators in this, the dealers. I do not condone drugs but neither do I see the point in targeting the end user.
And is this not a gross invasion of privacy? Do I not have the right to refuse to be searched? Or does that extend only when I’m walking down the street and not while I’m taking a train home?
This is ludicrous, and I do not recall the public being asked in any way what their opinion of this is. I do not appreciate being told what I must accept, with no recourse for argument. Again I reiterate my point that I do not condone drug use…but what is the point going after the workers when the main target should surely be the queen bee?
***
Andrew Mclean
I do believe the government is determined to get people off public transport and into their cheap smelly cars. The Olympics cruelly gave Sydneysiders (indeed people from all over) a taste of what public transport can be like – on time, efficient, consistent – but that is all merely an illusion.
I rarely use public transport as I’m rarely in need of it, however next time I go to or from a party, club or pub and require transport, I shall either take a taxi (often not possible as I have no money left) or drive. And what the hell, I’ll probably drive under the influence of drugs AND alcohol!
Hmmmmm, but that has it’s legal dangers as well. Oh well, I reckon I’ll just stop going out and I’ll encourage any tourists, family and friends who visit Sydney to do the same because Big Brothers are increasing in numbers and are just around every corner.
***
Terrorism laws
1. Daryl
Since Daryl Williams is the architect of the terror package and will gain the most power if it passes, it’s important to know where he’s coming from. Here’s an extract from his speech on terrorism yesterday.
”We have introduced a package of legislation designed to bolster our ability to combat terrorism. The bulk of this package of legislation has passed through the House of Representatives and is now being examined by a Senate Committee. In short, the proposed legislation will:
* Create a specific offence for involvement in terrorism.
* Dry up the funds that terrorists rely on.
*Allow life imprisonment of those found guilty of delivering or placing a bomb with the intent to cause death or economic destruction, and
* … strengthen the capabilities of our intelligence agencies to prevent and combat terrorism.
”The clear purpose of this legislation is to allow us to identify terrorist plots, to prevent the terrorist acts and to prosecute those involved. The Bills are aimed at denying terrorists the means to organise, legitimise and carry out their activities. This legislation gives our security agencies the tools they need to protect the Australian community. And we have balanced those tools with safeguards for the rights of law-abiding individuals and groups.
”There are some who seem incapable or unwilling to accept the need for or the intent and application of the legislation.
”They can not accept that since September 11 our world has changed forever and that the changed security environment has necessitated the type of legislation currently before the Parliament. It is simply naive to suggest that what we are proposing is unnecessary or an over-reaction on the basis that there is no known specific threat of terrorism in Australia. The reality is that our involvement in the war against terrorism has raised our profile as a terrorist target.
”While I support healthy debate as a reflection of our strong democracy, it must be a debate on the facts, not simplistic slogans. The Australian Government is not in the business of outlawing legitimate political and community organisations. And we are not in the business of confiscating their funds.
”We understand and we share the broader community’s instinct to protect our civil rights and liberties. And we have worked hard to ensure an appropriate balance between these and the need to protect our families and our friends from the devastating impact of terrorism
”In the current debate, some critics seem not to fully understand the legislation and the safeguards within it, or they are deliberately misrepresenting the legislation to further their own political agendas. Either way they are not contributing to informed public debate.” ……
So who are these critics who are either too stupid to understand the package or are wilfully misrepresenting it? John Dowd, perhaps, the former NSW Liberal Attorney-General who now heads the International Commission of Jurists? The Law Council of Australia, the body Williams chaired before he entered politics?
No, it must be Liberal Senators Payne, Scullion and Mason, who determined after hearing the facts, not the simplistic slogans of Daryl, that the package needed extensive tightening to stop people engaging in normal political behaviour from coming within its net, and the dumping of William’s plan to give himself power to ban political groups which don’t suit the government’s political interest.
We believe you, Daryl Williams QC, really truly, that ”the Australian Government is not in the business of outlawing legitimate political and community organisations”. But you more than anyone in the government understand that it’s not what you say you intend that matters, it’s what the law actually says, and that laws apply to all future governments, not just yours. And if you assume that the Courts will clean up your mess, this wouldn’t be the same Courts your government constantly vilifies and tells not to make law, would it?
If Williams had bothered to read the evidence before the Committee, he’d know that his critics understand the legislation than he does, if his comments are anything to go by. They don’t deny the terrorism threat, and several have proposed amendments and alternatives which would mean what you say you intend to mean.
Notice that Williams fails to respond to any of the factual criticisms of the bill. Citizens are not concerned with what Williams allegedly ”intends” the bill to do, but what it DOES do. Do we really want the writer of this speech to have the power he wants? Rhetorical abuse, no facts, and non-engagement with the genuine and informed criticisms marks a man unfit for them.
***
2. Howard
The only thing I’ve found from Howard on this issue recently was in an interview with Neil Mitchell on Melbourne Radio 3AW last week. Mitchell asked about the ASIO bill, on which Parliament’s ASIO committee will report next month.
John Howard: Well I want it (the terrorism package) to arm us with what is needed consistent with our traditions as a liberal democracy, what is needed in order to fight terrorism.
Neil Mitchell: How far do you go with that?
Howard: Well you’ll never get complete agreement on that. We think this legislation – which goes a little further than in the past particularly in the relation to the 48 hour period (new ASIO power to detain a citizen without arrest for two days without Court approval) – we think that is justified in relation to the sort of threat that we now face. You have this eternal dilemma. People say what’s the Government doing about the new terror threat, when we do something about it we are then accused of going too far. We think we’ve got the balance right but we’re listening to what people have got to say. I don’t want this country to lose its strong tradition of civil liberties and its tradition of being a liberal democracy. Its treasuring of the principles that somebody is innocent until proven guilty. All of those things are very important to our society.
…Q: Can people be jailed for five years for not answering questions?
Howard: There are new offences created by this and we think they are fair.
Q: Can people be jailed for five years for not answering questions?
Howard: That is one of the new offences created by it yes.
Q: How is that fair? If you’ve got a presumption of innocence surely you’ve got a right not to answer questions?
Howard: Well, but if that is part of a pattern of deliberately obstructing the proper investigation of an allegation I’m not sure that I would agree with you.
Q: But how far do you extend that, I refuse to answer questions? Five years?
Howard: So you think it’s perfectly alright for somebody to do that indefinitely no matter what the circumstances?
Q: I think it’s the base of any democratic judicial system at the moment that you have the right to refuse to answer questions.
Howard: I think you have to look at the whole bill in the context of the new environment in which we are.
Q: So how far do we go?
Howard: I think the bill strikes a good balance.
Q: I’ve just had a line from a caller you’ll love, they said if you put people in jail for not answering a question you wouldn’t have many politicians walking around free. Do you agree with that?
Howard: Well we don’t always answer questions, no.
***
3. Recommendations
Readers have suggested these sites for articles on the package:
Political scientist Jude McCulloch’s ”The end of our liberal democracy” at theage
”Terrorism and Terrible Laws: An Open Letter to Australians” at globalist
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Library research paper ”Terrorism and the Law in Australian: Legislation, Commentary and Constraints” at library
Harold Hark has forwarded an email being circulated by Damien Lawson of the Federation of Community Legal Centres in Victoria
URGENT ACTION NEEDED
Public hearings of the Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS & DSD finished in Melbourne yesterday. With the Senate inquiry finishing the week before. The two inquiries will now report back to Parliament and the legislation will be debated and voted on in the Senate.
The next two weeks will be crucial in determining the ALP’s policy on the legislation, with their Federal caucus meeting on May 13 to determine their position, and therefore what laws are finally passed.
It is clear that public pressure and growing debate in the media has already had some affect with the ALP indicating they are considering some amendments, but amendments are not enough as these laws are fundamentally undemocratic and no amount of tinkering will change that. It is crucial we all do what we can to influence the ALP to join with the Greens and the Democrats in opposing these laws.
If you do nothing else in the next two weeks you must ring, fax or email (or all three) the ALP Senators in your State and the office of Simon Crean and John Faulkner. For most this is just a few calls – please make the effort.
If you have time also make contact with as many other Senators or Representatives you can. You can find their details at www.aph.gov.au
The crucial issues remain the same:
1) no new terrorism offences, the existing criminal law can be used
2) no banning of organisations or lists that label individuals or organisations as terrorists
3) no new powers for ASIO
Simon Crean: Parliament House: Tel (02) 6277 4022, Fax (02) 6277 8495, S.Crean.MP@aph.gov.a=u. Electorate Office: Tel (03) 9545 6211, Fax (03) 9545 6299, 401 Clayton Road, Clayton Vic 316, PO Box 5295, Clayton Vic 3168
John Faulkner: Tel 02-9719-8100, Fax 02-9719-8078, Senator.Faulkner@aph=.gov.au
***
4. Reader views
Jozef Imrich
I can only imagine how the devil is rejoiced by the ASIO taking steps of becoming STASI. I doubt that anyone can stop the current madness just as my parents could not stop WWII or the spread of Stalinist communism. However, at least today we know what we are really buying when we engage in terrorism to combat terrorism.
The terrorists have won. The devil is pleased with himself.
***
Daniel Maurice
I’ve come back to your Webdiary after a few days absence to discover that you (and apparently lots of your readers) are riding a new wave of hysteria, this time about anti-terrorist legislation. The way you tell the story anyone and everyone will soon be liable to draconian penalties because of these proposed laws.
Time to get a grip, I think. Whatever their “theoretical” application, do you seriously consider that any Australian government would get away with applying these laws to garden variety dissent? This in a country where even the most minor transgression by a political figure regularly generates media and public outrage? (Elsewhere governments kill thousands of their citizens, or siphon off billions of dollars through graft and corruption – in Australia we have weeks of page one headlines because a Minister gave his son access to his government-provided phone card!).
A simple question: if we are to focus on the literal, or potential application of these anti-terrorist laws, why aren’t you campaigning to curb the “dictatorial” powers of the Governor-General? The last time I looked the G-G is perfectly entitled under the constitution to sack the Government, take personal control the armed forces and declare war, among other things. Actually your average policeman already has the power to arrest you on the flimsiest of pretexts, from jay-walking to swearing at him. Yet as individuals we enjoy personal liberty, protected by democratically elected governments, free press and an independent judiciary, to say nothing of common sense, convention and shared social values.
In this, as in so many other of the issues that Bleeding Hearts take up, a reasonable point of view – in this case the need for carefully crafted legal responses to terrorism – is lost because of absurd exaggeration born of blind hatred of your political opponents.
Margo: Daniel, these laws don’t just apply to this governments but all governments which follow. The idea of the rule of law, especially in criminal law where the citizen’s liberty is at stake, is for offences to be clearly, tightly, set out so the Court can readily apply them. To argue, as you do, that it’s not dangerous to leave citizen’s liberty and democratic rights to the discretion of police and government is, I reckon, a recipe for losing the very democracy you and I treasure.
***
David Davis in New York
No one is closer to the catastrophic impact of terrorism than New Yorkers, so in that sense it makes it all the more interesting to see that they are hotly debating the attack on civil liberties post September 11.
Here is a link to a special in the Village Voice on the topic of “The Attack on Civil Liberties”: villagevoice.
On the other hand it is not so surprising. New York is about as diverse a place as you would find on the planet, and of course it is the home of the world’s most renowned monument to liberty. If New Yorkers stop caring about civil liberties, then we are all in trouble! The good news is: they haven’t.
***
Jess Rosman in Sydney
I found out about these laws at a public meeting in Newtown about a month ago I was horrified. As a student of history I often wondered how full on police states managed to get the power they did, why people allowed the passing of laws that would deny them basic freedoms. After that meeting I got a frightening glimpse into how this could happen.
I was at a large meeting of about 100 people, but if you think of how big Sydney is, it’s a painfully small amount. To stop things like this from happening you need tens of thousands to say no, not hundreds.
Once laws like these are passed, there is more room for the government of the day to do what ever it wants. Any opposition can be locked up as threats to the ‘state.’ So far the media has been incredibly quiet on this issue, considering the ramifications. Imagine how quiet they’ll be if it gets through.
The other aspect of these laws I’d like to address is the threat of ‘terrorism.’ So far there has been no critical understanding of why terrorist acts like suicide bombings happen. I would support the bill being scrapped completely, and not replaced with anything.
***
Gavin E. Greenoak in Sydney
I was invited to present my position on the anti-terrorism bills at a Senate public forum held at the Mitchell Library on May 1. It would be difficult to fault the forum given the organisational limitations of such a meeting. We spoke, some listened, none replied, we were recorded.
The problem for me, and I suspect for many Australians who have not been whisked away from themselves in the gale of propaganda, is that fundamental issues underpinning the War on Terrorism are beyond the pale of serious scrutiny, and yet, I would suggest, that these are the real issues.
For example: I have no prejudice against the people of any race or nation, but I do have a prejudicial suspicion of all governments, which history insists upon. Australia is NOT its government. Australians do not at its intelligent heart merely go along with the US Government which by the same token is not “Americans”.
Howard made all Australians a target for terrorism on the basis of an allegiance which did not undergo the scrutiny it absolutely should have received. A mere glance at the the Israel/Palestine conflict returns the impossibility of using this word “terrorist” with any likelihood of clear and sober meaning.
The Western Alliance has already moved to a position where the terrorist and terrorism is like a virus and its disease rather than a human violence which proceeds from human violation. Who the terrorist is, and why, has submerged beyond view and with these questions, the absolute need for critical self-examination.
There was a real choice after September 11. It is crucial to understand that while governments have made the choice for a radical demonisation of the terrorist threat, this choice is not a representative choice, and is a real departure from the often difficult requirements intelligence demands before going off and killing people.
Very little courage was required to invade and attack an already stricken Afghan Nation which had already been a target for an oil hungry government. Great courage was required to forestall yet another escalation of the revenge cycle, and it was not forthcoming.
Speaking on May 1 at the Senate Public Forum, I knew that I was merely going through the motions, and it was a very bad feeling. Far, far away from what seems to be acceptable public debate linked to any reality of action which might make such debate worthwhile, is that the Western Alliance is like a ship in a storm which stays afloat against first this wind, then that wave, and so on, but not because it has anything resembling a firm grip upon where it is going.
Such a grip can only come from the strong and sober heads, clean hands, open hearts, and clear eyes of individual men and women for whom a self-responsibility must underpin any public one if it is to hold that power of integrity which alone saves it from mere expedience. Only these men and women command the reality of respect. To ask where they are seems a vain exhortation.
I opposed the Bills because they confirm our target status, will not protect Australians, will conceal if not prevent necessary self-examination, and cannot be drafted in a way that will prevent the threat of terrorism becoming the threat of government.
These Bills doubtless will go through, because it is in the interests of government(s) that they do so. That these interests in no way engage with those of any human being seeking to dissolve barriers and transform necessary boundaries between people is blindingly obvious, and utterly shameful.
In a participatory democracy no adult is innocent, which is why I write, albeit against a tide, but not I believe against the tide of life more abundant.
***
Ian Farrell in the United States
I am a former lawyer currently doing my PhD in law and philosophy and am working on an article about the hunger strikes at Woomera, placing their actions in the context of the tradition of civil disobedience from Thoreau through Gandhi and MLK. The incredibly broad definition of terrorism would appear to include all acts of civil disobedience, including Gandhi and MLK’s principled, peaceful law-breaking.
Do we really want to set up a situation in which the fact that people are protesting what they consider to be an unjust law is IN AND OF ITSELF is a crime?
Further, the power of ASIO to hold people incommunicado has disastrous consequences for those involved in civil disobedience, because one of the primary functions of civil disobedience is communication: to communicate to the public the strength of ones convictions, and demonstrate the injustice of the laws being protested and the lengths the authorities will go to in order to enforce them. None of this will be possible if people can be held incommunicado.
I am working and studying in the US right now, and the government’s actions are making it harder and harder for me to be proud to be Australian.
***
Anthony Clark in Dundas, NSW
I was wondering just how widely the anti-terrorist legislation could be interpreted, in particular the phrase ‘serious harm to a person’. Does this just mean physical harm? Or can it mean psychological harm? Emotional harm? Harm to a person’s reputation?
If it has any meaning other than physical harm, then arguably the teachers’ union, in committing a political act by banning the Governor-General from entering public schools, has committed a terrorist act. As all teachers are indirectly involved in directing how the union operates, every single teacher in Australia (who is a member of the union) could end up being jailed for life.
Of course this is an extreme interpretation of the legislation and would not happen, but it does illustrate the problem with having poorly drafted legislation.
***
Martin Oliver
The government has now admitted that ASIO would be able to hold people incommunicado for more than 6 days – because the allowed 48 hour periods are infinitely renewable. Under the ASIO bill, a member of the Free Tibet Movement in Australia could be charged with terrorism and extradited to China as long as an extradition treaty had been previously set up. It’s like a bad comedy skit.
***
Alistair Noble
I can’t believe this “anti-terror” legislation isn’t the scandal of the century in Australian politics and law. I have no doubt it will one day be viewed as such – probably when it’s way too late.
Just as in pre-Nazi Germany, ordinary folk like us think the legislation will never be applied to us. It’s surely only for really, really naughty people. The trouble is a government’s definition of naughtiness can change from moment to moment and is, as you point out, subject also to external pressures.
Australians, be very afraid. It’s not only Free Tibet stickers or a coffee with the nice Moslem family next door that might land you in jail – writing an email like this might have the same result.
***
Martin Davies in Canada
After your summary of the anti-terrorism bills I realised once again how draconian the proposal is in light of the fact that Australia does not have a bill of rights or charter to at least provide some sort of constitutional protection against such legislation.
Oe thing these bills take aim at “freedom of association”. Now I’m not saying I would feel comfortable with this legislation if Australians were constitutionally protected in this way, but it would be a way that citizens could defend themselves.
To continue placing faith in Governments to extend citizens the rights and freedoms that are specifically declared in both the US and Canada is no longer acceptable. The Howard Government through legislation like this and the way it has sought to challenge the legitimacy of the Courts makes me no longer willing to have that faith.
The sooner we begin to talk about promoting a bill of rights for the nation the better we might all sleep. The reason a constitutional bill of rights is worthy of consideration is that it it not only makes our behaviour less suspect but more defensible if and when the Government decides it is time to lash out and penalize our associations. To not have such protection means we are more vulnerable than we ever cared to admit.
***
Peter Kelly
The anti-terrorist bill before parliament is the biggest threat to democracy since Menzies tried to outlaw the communist parties. It is interesting to compare those times to the present and it is interesting to compare the sort of party the Labor Party was back then to what it is today.
Doc Evatt courageously took an unpopular position at a time when the party was at pains to present itself as NOT being in sympathy with communists. The “threat” facing the world was the red scare and Menzies was using the same sort of language to describe the “changed” world as Howard is today.
Principle counted for something. It was thanks to the Doc that Australia was saved from a truly draconian law. But 50 years latter it seem we are to get it in spades, with more to come, and Australians don’t care. Keep the masses scared about the “millions of refugees” and the “open flood gates” and you can get away with anything, up to, and including, instituting a police state.
In Menzies’ time it was the “yellow peril” and it tied in nicely with his political agenda. The Petrov affair was played so skilfully by Menzies that the Labor Party was denied any chance of government for at least the following 10 years and did not gain government in any case for another 20 years.
The opposition is scared of being called names by the government and will do anything up to, and including, selling democracy down the drain, to avoid this. They are moral cowards and well deserved their loss at the last election. They are a bunch of pussy cats. I believe history will identify the Tampa incident as the one event that kept Labor in opposition for over 20 years. It to early 21st century Labor what Petrov was to 1950s Labor.
Labor is a dead carcass floating in the water legs up, drifting past the smoking ruins of freedom and democracy. One difference between the 2 Labor Parties is the absence of anyone like Doc Evatt today.