JU's Resident Terrorist Commits Sedition

Published on November 1, 2005 By Champas Socialist In War on Terror

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.
"

Comments (Page 2)

Champas Socialist

on Nov 02, 2005

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.

Dr Guy

on Nov 02, 2005

And maybe restaurants.

How about just newspapers?

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

Champas Socialist

on Nov 02, 2005

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.

Dr Guy

on Nov 02, 2005

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!

bakerstreet

on Nov 02, 2005

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...

Chakgogka

on Nov 03, 2005

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.

Champas Socialist

on Nov 03, 2005

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.

cactoblasta

on Nov 03, 2005

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"?

dynamaso

on Nov 06, 2005

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.

Chakgogka

on Nov 09, 2005

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.

cactoblasta

on Nov 11, 2005

looks a bit surreal too...

Liberal backbenchers have been hinting at rebelling, but so far they haven't, so I reckon it's just jockeying for power. Nothing serious. They still vote the party line so really this benevolent dictatorship australia has elected isn't much affected.

The 'changes' they've caused haven't really meant anything. I just wish Beazley had more spine. He's totally unsuited to being an opposition leader. He should be standing up there saying shit like "Have you no shame?" and taking the extremely high moral ground. It's not like he's got anything to lose. Instead he's simply saying, "yes, we must be able to put people in jail for 2 weeks and not allow them to mention it to their parents or loved ones on release because that's what we need to fight terrorism". Beazley's as bad as Howard. They both deserve whatever comes to them karma-wise in my opinion.

Was that breaking the sedition laws? Perhaps I should censor myself!

Champas Socialist

on Nov 13, 2005

Don't worry cacto, I already censored you in the article.

Champas Socialist

on Nov 13, 2005

Some of you may have noticed that Beazley has said they will not agree to the new sedition laws.

cactoblasta

on Nov 13, 2005

Some of you may have noticed that Beazley has said they will not agree to the new sedition laws.

Well that's good news. Last time I heard he said he supported the need for it. I suppose there has to be one time I'm happy to see he's changed his mind.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!