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 > Scrutinising our counter-terrorism laws > Comments

Scrutinising our counter-terrorism laws : Comments

By Graeme Innes, published 6/11/2008

It is time for decisive action to improve Australia’s counter-terrorism laws.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
the government should...

that's the beginning and end of chatterati participation in oz politics. oz is not a democracy. you're either in parliament and a participant in politics, or you're not, and you're not.

what you are, is a subject. just as pollies have inherited the status and power of the winners at hastings, this chatteratum, and all of us, have inherited the status and power of the losers. "people cast down" encapsulated that very well.

democracy is the natural state of humanity, if you subscribe to the notion that all should have equal rights. politicians do not subscribe to this ideal. they believe that all should have equal rights, except politicians should be more equal.

politicians are despicable, but they are pursuing personal advantage in an openly visible way. for real hypocrisy, you can't go past the academics who like to pretend they live in a democracy without ever suggesting that the constitution be changed.
Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 6 November 2008 10:24:26 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
Anti-terrorist law must not be treated the same way as ordinary criminal law. Normal human rights must not be automatically assumed: we are not dealing with normal people. To talk about human rights and terrorists or suspected terrorists in the same breath is outrageous.

Does the Muslim community “feel fairly targeted by the counter-terrorism laws? Have there been any instances of ordinary Muslims being targeted? No. Even the few who were recently tried and found to have no case to answer were not ‘ordinary’ in the sense that authorities thought they needed investigating. Of the 300,000 Muslims living in Australia, the handful in question are the only ones who MIGHT feel victimised. Most Muslims have nothing at all to fear from anti-terror laws, and they could hardly object to the laws as they are the biggest victims of terrorism throughout the world. Saying that “…Muslim Australians felt unfairly targeted by the counter-terrorism laws” is not acceptable without evidence in a matter as serious as this.

Most Muslims in Australia can feel as disconnected from the laws as I do.

On ‘freedom of expression’ as raised by the ALRC, we must remember that a Christian minister in Victoria was hauled before the courts and found guilty purely by repeating something which can be found in the Koran by anyone!

As for independent reviewers of terrorism laws – phooey! No individual, appointed or elected is independent of thought: and this legislation has no precedents. Mr. Innes himself, for example, is a long-time professional public servant. He certainly wears his heart on his sleeve and tries to convince us of his ‘truth’ – something he should have no right to do, as a public servant.

No ‘solutions’ are needed because there is nothing to solve.
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 6 November 2008 10:44:06 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
SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING?

The author, Graeme Innes sadly appears to be writing in a vacuum - scrupulously avoiding the Government's purported review plan.

The Australian, September 26, 2008 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24403305-5001561,00.html stated:

"THE man favoured by the Rudd Government to be the nation's first independent watchdog of the counter-terrorism laws has expressed fresh concern about some of the powers available to the police and security agencies, saying the time is ripe for a review of the laws.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, [IGIS] Ian Carnell, said yesterday he was concerned some of the offences described in the terror laws were vaguely defined.

He said that for some offences, such as associating with or financing a terror group, the burden of proof was too heavy, with suspects required to demonstrate their innocence.

Mr Carnell said he expressed these concerns when he was a member of the 2006 Sheller inquiry into the terror laws.

However, he said, since then the police and security services had been given fresh powers, which had not been comprehensively reviewed..."

Graeme Innes would be aware of the IGIS proposal but leaves it out of this OLO article.

Perhaps Innes recognises that the IGIS office is already overworked and understaffed in its current roles, let alone taking on a new review role. The independence of the ten person IGIS office is also in question – it relies on secondments and is physically located within the AG’s Department in Canberra.

Innes campaign to establish an independent reviewer may have the inherent downside that any non-governmental figure may have little access to the real workings of counter-terror laws when they are being implemented on the street.

The Government’s cultural tendency on terrorism laws seems to be that judges and other independent entities may be a necessary evil to be blinkered and served up a court case AFTER a defendant has spent 2 to 3 years in maximum security.

With that tendency in mind good luck Graeme.

Some compromise may be necessary, addressing the Government’s intention, or perhaps distraction, over an IGIS review role.

Peter Coates
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 6 November 2008 10:50:46 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
FIRSTLY....

<<An Independent Reviewer would provide depoliticised, integrated advice about how well counter-terrorism laws are working in practice - scrutiny of the kind that is not presently taking place.>>

There is NO SUCH animal as an 'independant' reviewer.

SECONDLY...

<<The Sheller Report made 20 recommendations aimed at clarifying the scope of offences relating to terrorist organisations and at responding to concerns that Muslim Australians felt unfairly targeted by the counter-terrorism laws.>>

WHY.. just ask yourself...WHY would the Muslim community be FEELING that "it" was unfairly targeted?

WHY "unfairly".....?

1/ Why them?

2/ Why unfairly?

THEM...because most terrorist incidents over the past decade which have effected the West have been perpetrated by Muslims.

UNFAIRLY? no..sorry,- given the answer to '1' it is not unfair at all.

It would be 'un' fair IF they did not have holy books which specifically name certain communities "Jews" and "Christians" and single them out for derision and destruction at worst, subjugation at best (9:30) but the fact is...they DO have these despicable and seditious revolutionary foundations at the heart of their holy books.
(9,30) the 9th surah of the Quran, which most self proclaimed tolerant people seem to know pretty much zero about, or are unwilling to find out.

When challenged to FIND OUT..they sidestep, and slide into their usual polemic about 'rabble rousing/hate mongering/fear and loathing' mantra rather than examine the implications of that surah for modern Muslim/Non Muslim relations.

CONCLUSION. It is neither UNfair, nor UNusual that people who claim adherence to a book which curses and calls for the destruction of non them in THIS world (rather than the next) are given a serious amount of attention by non them governments. (specially then the Prime Minister belongs to one of those cursed groups)
So..Graham Innes.. do some reading and then you might qualify for a re-vamped, properly constituted 'Sheller' committee.
Did that committee have any experts on Islam on it?
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 6 November 2008 12:17:01 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
"we are not dealing with normal people". yep, mr right, you said it. nothing normal about trashing the concept of burden of proof. nothing normal about keeping demonstrably innocent people locked up for years. nothing normal about torturing people. or executing them without trial. nope, not even close to "normal". or to "civilized".

polycarp, remember our little discussion about christians and "christians"?
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 6 November 2008 3:14:20 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 have a question about the terrorism laws that the author or some other poster may be able to answer. I gather that the terrorism laws were enacted under section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, which empowers the Commonwealth, with the consent of all the states, to legislate on any subject. Does it therefore follow that the Commonwealth would be unable of itself to amend or repeal these laws, and would require the consent of all the states to do so? Now that we have one non-labor state, Western Australia, would this unanimous consent necessarily be forthcoming?
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 6 November 2008 4:10:36 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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