The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Protecting the freedoms of the dead > Comments

Protecting the freedoms of the dead : Comments

By Con George-Kotzabasis, published 10/11/2005

Con George-Kotzabasis argues Australia's fear of terrorism should be greater than the fear of losing our freedom.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
To Leigh; who is frightened here?

And I congratulate you on distilling anything at all out of Con's ponderous prose.

Most people, CL's included, are agreeing with the principle of some form of anti terror legislation; many belive what we have is adequate and the recent raids certainly do not contradict that yet

- many are simply saying the erosion of certain principles represents an attack on our exisiting freedoms and our physical safety can be assured without some - not all - but some of the proposed measures.

Now a cell or cells have been exposed will the commmunity be reassured - or will they think wheres there's one or two gathered in Allahs' name there must be a whole bunch of cells cooking up the same thing? If so where do we go from here? Clearly Anti Terror laws mark one were not of much deterrant value; do we wait and see how good ATL mk11 is before we ramp them up again? Or do we try to develop a response commensurate with the threat? - my guess is whether we find some bomb thrower with the fuse a fizzing or not ATL Mk 111 is just around the corner.

The relevance of the the CL's can in a small way be measured in the vehemence of the resposne they get when they defend those liberties.
Hoping they go away, dissmissive commentary and derision is a poor excuse for an argument. Those approaches are usually associated with fear and confusion so prevalent in this debate and certainly not the preserve of civil libertarian
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 11 November 2005 2:38:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The recent arrests of alleged terrorists was achieved under existing law. I would like to see detailed explanation of just how the new laws will keep us any safer.

So far as I know, making and letting off bombs has always been a crime so how do the new laws prevent making and detonating bombs?

Being unable to criticise the current government (sedition) is an infringement on free speech and I don't see how that makes us any safer. Also will blogs like this be able to continue if some of us refer to John Howard as "that lying little rodent" or Alexander Downer as "that mincing clown", or Costello's smirk, for example.

I warned my mother from going out in public - unlike me she is dark skinned and dark haired (Jewish Great Gran) and she likes to wear scarves - could be risky with these new laws, so I have warned her to stay away from airports, railway stations, houses of parliament and very tall buildings. If I don't hear from her for 2 weeks I'll know what has happened. And I'll never be able to ask her about it.......
Posted by Scout, Friday, 11 November 2005 3:02:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am also somewhat concerned about the imposition of retrospective criminal liability upon people who had trained with terrorists (s.142.2(2) of the new laws). The last time Australia was facing similar problems (complete with hysterical press coverage) teh Federal Parliament tried to introduce similar laws, which were found to be un-Constitutional (Comunist Party Case) because Australia could not justify these actions, because Australia had not declared was on Communism (despite being involved in Korea at the time).

As Con so intelligently points out, these laws are valid in time of war, however Australia is not actually at war, therefore these laws are not valid (Polyukhevic; Communist Party Case). I also have grave concerns about the ability of Courts (Federal Court; Federal Magistrates Court; and the Family Court) to issue what are in fact warrants for detention, without the need for a trial (see especially Plenty v Dillon; Coco v The Queen), which is a thoroughly discredited concept, and according to Blackstone, a magistrate who does so has committed an offence.

Therefore I do not see that the majority of magistrates or judges would be at all interested at being involved in the issue of such warrants (control orders), as this arguably, is one of the only issues upon which they could incur personal liability, whether acting as persona designata or not.
Posted by Aaron, Saturday, 12 November 2005 7:43:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I’m not frightened, Sneeky, and I don’t know whether or not the current laws are adequate. They could be adequate, but I just don’t know. That’s why I’m happy to leave that to someone who does know, and that certainly isn’t CL’s.

I think I’ve said this to your before: I have no problems about my own civil liberties because I have never done, and never will do, anything that will bring me to the notice of the bogies with regard to the legislation in question.

You speak of deterrent value. I don’t think the laws are of any use at all as a deterrent. The people who they are aimed at are fanatics. Nothing except death will deter them. The laws are there to deal with them when, and if, they are caught.

You say that the relevance of the CL’s can be judged by the vehemence of their detractors’ reactions. I can see why you say that. I agreed with Janet Albrechtsen’s “This level of hysteria suggests anti-terror laws are sound” a couple of weeks ago. I supposed it’s just what we believe.

Like you, I did find Con’s piece hard to wade through, and I’m all for simple language, but remember, he’s a lawyer.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 12 November 2005 9:48:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEIGH

Thanks for standing by me. It's good to see an eagle among a pack of chickens, with one exception, Aaron.

CON
Posted by Themistocles, Saturday, 12 November 2005 12:43:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Con,

Further to original post(s)

Please follow the link below to read the advice provided to ACT Chief Minister (Stanhope) from the law faculty of UNSW.

http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/News_and_Events/Doc/Stanhope_advice_20051018.pdf

This tends to suggest that there is major issues with this legislation, not least of which is the detention of a person with no need for proof, the removal of the need for the prosecutrix to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the reversal of the evidential and persuasive onus' of proof (on appeal) - presumably also to balance of probabilities, but even so - the accused must prove that they did nothing wrong. Moreover, the accused will have to do so with no access to any of the information or allegations against themself.

Additionally, despite reassurance regarding the need for effective access to the courts, the bill expressly excludes judicial review (ADJR).

Yes, I am forced to reiterate my opposition to these laws.
Posted by Aaron, Saturday, 12 November 2005 3:10:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy