What’s the opinion worth?
As an opinionated Australian who is very vocal about her dislike of the Prime Minister, the government, many of it’s policies and even more of it’s Ministers I am wondering just how must freedom of speech I actually have.
Schedule 7-sedition.
Crimes act 19144. At the end of section 30 A
Add:
(3) In this section:
seditious intention means an intention to effect any of the following purposes:
(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(b) to urge disaffection against the following:
(i) the Constitution;
(ii) The Government of the Commonwealth;
(iii) Either house of Parliament;(c ) to urge another person to attempt , otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth;
(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Under this government’s proposed sedition clause in the anti-terrorism legislation I am not the only Australian to ask this question. Comedians, satirists and commentators are seeking advice and clarity with regard to their rights which might include urging others to feel disaffection with the Government, the constitution or parliament.
Professor George Williams an expert in constitutional law at the University of NSW has stated,
"But the possibility that you could be jailed is enough that people will question whether they want to make the comment in the first place…why would you risk it? It is a very risky thing to play with free speech…it should not come down to trust."
I guess I’ll have to be careful and avoid saying things like HoWARd is a terrorist.
- Manipulating Australia’s fear of being overrun by queue-jumpers and the assertion that children were thrown overboard.
- Manipulating Australia’s fear of an attack on the west by Saddam and the WMD falsehood.
- And now the fear of a specific homegrown attack somewhere in Australia (or its territories) by extremists that hate our way of life.
"Whatever will happen, will happen at an appropriate time, if at all" – Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock.
The A terrorist manipulates the a population by using fear.
Image from here
November 7th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
Nailed it in one, Suki.
I do not trust the government to act in my best interest in matters of human rights, nor should I have to. We need a Bill of Rights- yesterday. A Bill of Rights would both revoke the power of arbitrary and capricious detention and as a flow-on benefit, absolve the government of the compensation claims which are sure to follow such abuses.
Bob Carr once said he thought a Bill of Rights would create a more litigious Australia. I strongly disagree. If anything, there would be less litigation in an environment where the peoples’ civil rights are ironclad.
It’s clear that John Howard lies. We know that. It’s an open secret. We also know that his government will abuse its discretionary authority in the course of protecting itself from criticism (see Parkin). We have no reasonable cause to trust he will not abuse the sedition laws.
This one deserves letters to MPs & state/territory leaders. No, not just one!
November 7th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
The whole thing could be the result of lobbying by the operators of gaols, which as we all know, are now private enterprise and looking for more clients all the time. Plenty of room for Bill Leak and Nicholson and Tandberg and all those threats to society who draw Mr Sulky Lip.
November 7th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
I’m waiting for the government to accuse those of us who oppose these laws on the grounds of our right to expect civil liberties, specifically freedom of speech, to be called unpatriotic.
November 7th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
Treasonous, more likely. I’m waiting for the smashing-down of the front door, the stun grenades, and the extra loud shouts of “GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR! HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK! NOW!!!” as they round up anyone critical of the government, America, globalisation, etc. etc.
I am seriously worried. Very very worried.
But I’ll be damned if I’ll be silenced by these fascist mass-murdering criminals! See you all on “the inside”. 🙁
November 8th, 2005 at 6:09 am
I fear the anti-terrorist laws more than I fear the terrorists.
Can I put this here:
The Civil Rights Network of Melbourne is having a forum “Laws of Insecurity” in Melbourne on 17th November to talk about these laws and their implications. Speakers include Petro Georgiou, Brian Walters and Prof George Williams.
More information can be found at: http://www.civilrightsnetwork.org/
November 8th, 2005 at 7:22 am
Gerry,
Perhaps we should all buy laptops, a wireless connection, a Ute and a tent…
November 8th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups…
I still want to know if this means locking up AFA and Aus Christian Lobby
mouthpieces who promote homophobia. If it does I want a separate cell.
What about the government promoting ill-will against citizen bloggers? Will they arrest themselves?
Does this mean Costello can be arrested for telling the Prime Miniature to piss off because he wants the job?
If it wasn’t so tragic, the comic possiblities are endless.
November 8th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Thanks for defineing terms , Suki , you must have the same dictionary as me. Let’s move to, “State” terrorism.
Isn’t that, when all Premiers’ pass over all power to John Howard , on civil rights? Regardless of having read the legislation, like Kim. Just hope the lobbying is helping.
Still reckon it is worth the effort.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Suki, their RFID, GPS and RDF wizardry would have Blackhawk on top of us in no time flat if they wanted us. I have a ute, a tent and a canoe. All I need now is the motivation to actually go somewhere with that gear. These days the letterbox is about as far as I can be bothered going. But enough of that…
November 8th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Yep, I guess there’s no use in hiding.
It used to be everywhere I go there I am…
now it’s everywhere we go there they are.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
I second Weezel’s comment regarding a Bill of Rights akin to the US, however it MUST be made clear that it must also include something along the lines of the second ammendment which succinctly says: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
We, the people, must have a right to bear arms which will in turn provide both its own checks and balances against the government taking power from the people and also enabling the people to keep certain belligerant minorities (no I’m not using the “M” word) in check.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Tumbleweed, private American citizens don’t really have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Per your citation, the right to keep and bear arms is conferred upon the members of a well-regulated militia… and a bunch of yahoos in camos with a cooler full of beer and a few AK47s or M240s don’t actually strike me as a ‘well-regulated militia.’
The founders of the US Constitution were making a provision for the national defence, not giving any old kanaka the right to walk around with a Ruger Redhawk in his waistband. Mind you, the way the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted, under long & strong pressure from the National Rifle Association would lead any casual observer to believe that firearms ownership is indeed a constitutional right. In fact, the 2nd really only provides for outfits like the state-level National Guard chapters.
The NRA are famous for using an edited fragment of the 2nd as a tagline: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” whilst leaving out the part about the well-regulated militia. It is argued by some that the founders had an intent in establishing an armed populace to unseat an abusive government. I can’t quite see that in the texts and I’m not so sure that violent overthrow of government is ever a wise thing to do. If the electoral system is corrupted such that it can be abused to the point of installing unelected government, then it is incumbent upon the people to fix the system and ensure its transparency.
Speaking as a weapons enthusiast who had quite an arsenal when I lived in the USA, including high-powered deer rifles and a Ruger Mini-14 (223 cal semi-auto), I can’t see any particular need for private ownership of AK47s, Uzis, etc. I mean, just how hard does a 5-point buck fight back? If you have to kill your dinner, you probably need a 308, 30-06 or 30-30, but if you need more than one of those high powered rounds to make the kill, you deserve to go hungry… or take up fish & vegetables. High powered rifles for hunting? Sure, but semi-automatic is unnecessary for hunting. I’m in favour of private ownership of high-powered, single shot bolt-action rifles, but semi-autos with enough grunt to shoot through a school bus from end to end a few dozen times are never needed in private hands.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Gerry, in regional Vic ,we have seen the blackhawks swoop.
Over the backyard, for sure. A bit scary.
Remember, a ‘bill of rights’ , already exists in one territory.The place where all the politicians spend most time. If it is good enough for them……….
November 9th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
I’m all for a Bill of Rights Tumbleweed. Can we start with what the US has and improve it. Personally, I can do without a well regulated militia, but I respect diversity and can see the benefit. I might even be happy to learn to shoot a gun if I could decide who the minorities I could target would be.
November 9th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
Mind you, have not seen Canberras’ brave document. Suspect, ‘the right to hold guns’, is not part of thingy.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Suki, you do need guns to prove your point. Your great words are far better. Do not despair!
November 9th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Your comment joe2 got me searching. Human Rights Act 2004. It’s smaller than I thought it would be at 34 pages. Section 16 enshrines the “opinion”.
November 10th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Well done Suki. At least it is in plainspeak, albeit long. It looks a bit like the ‘attourney-general’ may overide all. The ghoul rules. Still, it is a template. Most people go to the American bill of rights for joy and that paper has been avoided on civil rights,coz, you do all the nasty stuff, off shore. Just thinking out loud and thanks for link.