"Even if we do have a law in this area, one of the problems with the current sedition law is the narrowness of its exceptions. It contains no defence for many forms of communication, such as artistic performances or even academic or scientific discussion. The law makes it an offence to say such things even where it is in the public or national interest to do so.

The existing law also fails to provide an exception for satire or comedy, a very Australian way of dealing with something as difficult and troubling as the war on terror. Fortunately, the commission has suggested a redraft to ensure that all these forms of communication are protected. There should be no doubt that they are outside of the criminal law, lest fear of prosecution, or even just a misunderstanding of the law, lead people to censor themselves."

Yawn. More soft-left prattle which basically implies we should ask the nice government not to be mean to us.

Is there really anyone who thinks that an Attorney-General would be so stupid as to launch a sedition case against a comedian? I mean, really? Attorneys-General _don't_ like looking ridiculous. The idea that this law is anything but a final 'nuclear weapon' is ridiculous.

http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/344535725451/view?searchterm=sedition is an article at Last Superpower.net by a person heavily involved in the anti-Vietnam-war protests in the sixties and seventies. It points out that treason laws were never used against people who openly advocated the defeat of Australian forces in Vietnam. (If that does not fit the legal defintion of treason, what does?)

Retaliation was far more mundane (although still damaging) - police violence, sackings, etc.

How can we make this beetle-spirited vapouring over sedition laws go away?

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

Stop and think - relax.

1. Any historical examination of sedition laws shows that those rules have nearly always been framed by the guilty for their own comfort.

2. It's not just the government you have now that is the problem.

3. You are leaving the keys in the ignition for the next and the next regime. And so on.

4. Sedition laws have always been hawked as a method of bolstering democracy through security.

5. Historically, regimes that mandated such controls were only deposed by violent conflict.

Get off your arses and learn your own history. Find out how today's chicken farmer becomes tomorrow's kamp kommondant. Learn how todays bogen becomes the architect of your children's future.

Three blind mice - see how they run.

The writer has "a bob each way" but this suggests he is getting more in touch with the political realities of the law.

His article is in dire need of links to reflect the context of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) Review of sedition laws.

An overview of the Sedition review is here http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/current/sedition/index.htm

The ALRC's Media release on the Review is here http://www.alrc.gov.au/media/2006/mr2905.htm indicating that "The ALRC is seeking community feedback on the proposals in the Discussion Paper [to which the OLO writer refers] before a final report is completed. Submissions close on Monday, 3 July 2006."

A friendly community message from:
Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

c

NOW you're interested in the smothering of our free speech and the public's right to know. You're disturbed about the free flow of information and the appearance of the law.

Do the names Lionel Murphy and Mick Kirby sound a tocsin George? Satire and comedy somehow come to mind when their names are mentioned.

This article might be a good opportunity to state the 'score' in regard to why we have anti terror laws:

1/ WMD and IRAQ
Iraq invaded for many reaons, but WMD was one of them.
The Left has gloated piously about
a) "huh... no WMD..they LIED to us"
b) "Illegal war"

Now, viola....they have FOUND actual weapons in Iraq, containing Saran etc. Not to mention the testimony from one of Sadaams pilots who admitted taking loads of them to Syria.

Now of course the Left is looking sideways with "Oh.. convenient that they should suddenly find them NOW"...... which of course raises the question "err..when would it NOT be 'convenient' for those who like to say Bush runs on spin rather than facts" ?

2/ 'Islamic Violence/Terrorism/Jihadis are threatening Australia'

Many arrested in Sydney and Melbourne for various charges including Plotting the Assassination of our Prime Minister and his family.

The Left says:
The Muslims arrested in Australia are 'unIslamic' and not representative of 'mainstream' Muslims.

RESPONSE: They might not be representative of 'Mainstream Muslims' but they SURE are representative of 'Islamic law and Mohamed's example'

3/ The Left says Zarqawi is just a bad muslim, thats why he mutilates his victims.
Response:
Refer my post and sources in that thread, he is just following Mohamed's example.

LEFT "0"
CLEAR THINKERS "3"

The greatest danger to Australia from the Anti Terrorism Laws is if they are EVER used to stop legitimate criticism of Islam and its Prophet.

This is what I believe.

Government expects us to be loyal to them when they should be loyal to their people so in effect, the government is committing sedition against the people.

I do not support Democracy as democratic governments spend too much time pandering up the selfish groups rather than running the nation for the people. So, I support the concept of people to overthrow a government(preferably peacefully) should it neglect their own.

Australian Governments of all persuasions are selling out Australian's. When the dosh runs out for us, they will be living all nice and comfy while we starve.

I support and would love to see majority of the Australian's pulling out of work, camping in the streets, temporarily grinding the Australian economy to a halt in order to kick these traitors out.

Hey Spider,

Why is the NSW Labor Government shaped like a BOOT?

Is it because they discriminate against ordinary NSW citizens in favour of European Immigrants?

Is it because their basix laws mean no one except foreign and big investors can afford to build or even renovate any more in NSW? They KNOW how to attract developers alright. Give them a total building MONOPOLY.

Is it because they want to attract investors who only want to invest where the public can be shown to no longer have a say? New Investors don't want a repeat of the desal collapse or the cross city tunnel cave-in now do they?

Is it because they care more about the price of Pizza and sushi than they do about NSW citizens? http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydneys-cheap--its-pizzas-apart/2006/06/21/1150845247858.html

Is it because the more they spend on Sydney infrastructure the worse our police, hospitals, trains, roads and justice systems get?

Is it because they branch stack, forum stack and seat stack our rich democratic systems till they are gutted and useless to all but Labor party counts, contessas, thugs and faithfuls?

Is it because they kick rural NSW in the guts and transfer all their taxes to Sydney infrastructure projects so they can create THEIR 'New York of the Pacific' and ponce around like little Mayor Bloombergs?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Sartor-takes-control-of-CUB-development/2006/06/21/1150845245085.html

Is it because the top five power figures are Italian descendants who are trying to run NSW like a Mafia operation?

Or is it just that NSW Labor is shaped like a BOOT because you can't fit that much sh$t in a SHOE?

No that's what I call free speech. The nightmare of it is --- that its all TRUE.

If you value freedom in NSW don't vote for NSW LABOR in March 2007 -- just don't do it!

I can't see how NSW on a map could possibly resemble a boot. NSW? Well its just a box really, maybe a bit like Mark Latham's head. Sorry Mark. Don't hit me please!

They're gonna need more than sedition laws to shut my mouth. Or the mouths of the Australian people. The film: "V for Vandetta" had a good point: "we should not fear our Governments, the Governments should fear their own people". We are huge and they are tiny. Sedition laws are just an exercise to try to invert this reality. It is a sign of their weakness, not their strength. They are only brainwashing us in believing that all our efforts in speach and freedom and peace are futile. To the US: former President Harry Trueman "without the stars, there is just darkness".

Are we really in darkness now? Are we part of the darkness? Or are we the stars that are denied the brilliance of democracy? "Don't wait for the messiah! If you are selfless, and are an activist for peace, you are part of the Messiah. The Messiah is not a man. The Messiah is the people. You, the activists, are the Messiah": Cindy Sheehan, peace activist.

When will we put our stars back on our flags? We earn our rights in democracy by our actions, not by our fear and denial. We retreat to our masters and they make us slaves. We stand and look them in the eye and demand to respect their own people, then we win back our rights.

"If you can't change the corporations, if you can't change the Governments, you have to change yourself" Martin Luther King Jr. This inspired Rosa Parkes to change to the white side of the bus, and the rest is history. Sedition? They did try to arrest her. Who won? The people. We are huge, and Howard is a tiny little piss-ant. Don't believe the hype!

Saintfletcher,

Can't you read?

I said "the NSW LABOR PARTY" is shaped like a boot.

How else could Iemma, Costa, Sartor, Della Bosca and Tripodi trample all over the rights of the ordinary citizens of this once great state of New South Wales without getting their feet dirty!

BD
Quote "Now, viola....they have FOUND actual weapons in Iraq, containing Saran etc. Not to mention the testimony from one of Sadaams pilots who admitted taking loads of them to Syria."

Ah EVERYONE knew about the nerve gass that Sadam had BD. It was supplied by the US government. Quite openly too. They supplied it for him to use in his was against Iran.

But Sadam NEVER had the means of manufaturing the stuff [and America ceased supplying the stuff after the war with Iran stopped] & in any case nerve gas is difficult to use over a large area. However the American government implied that Sadam possessed, or at least possessed the means to manufacture, nuclear weapons. No such weapons, or facilities, have ever been found.

Don't sign yourself up for the clear thinkers club just yet :)

I can read KEAP but you can you stick to the topic? My comment was ironic, but I doubt you know what irony is. The topic is on sedition laws from the Howard Federal Governent. You seem to be barking up the wrong tram. You are talking about NSW State issues of their buget. Was this in the subject matter? No. Was this in the article? No. It is a figment of you intruding in the wrong page. There is another page for that topic, KAEP, now go there.

SaintF,

The only irony here is that you predicate your name with the word saint.

And I suppose that if I point out that as an example of free speech my post was entirely relevant, you would say your latest misinterpretation of it was just another irony.

Personally I just think you are comprehensionally challenged.

Mr Boaz,

Your post is so full of holes I don’t know where to begin.

OK, first, Saran a material that can be used to make weapons, not a WMD in itself. Hardly a big find. Especially since we already knew they had it because it was sold to Iraq by Dow Chemical, an American company.

We were told that WMDs were the only reason for invading Iraq. Don’t confuse that. The other reasons only eventuated AFTER WMDs weren’t found. For example, when it looked like WMDs weren’t going to be found at all, the neo-conservative news network, FOX News, started referring to the war as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Then the neo-conservative morons bought it.

What the Conservatives choose to ignore are the real reasons for invading Iraq...to make Bush and his cronies even richer. They rely on the testimony of ONE person as their entire proof that WMDs were moved to Iraq. Well gee, if it mean I’d be granted citizenship in America to tell the world that WMDs were move to Syria then I’d so it too. It’s hardly concrete evidence. Here is a list of actual facts that Mr Boaz and his ilk are conveniently ignoring:

ONE
Halliburton, the company that Dick Cheney is the former CEO of (what a coincidence) is an oil-drilling company. Their stocks have risen nearly 80,000,000 since the invasion of Iraq. Are we starting to put 2 and 2 together now Mr Boaz?

Now let’s take a look at some of the other best friends of G W Bush profiting from the war:

-AEGIS
-BearingPoint
-Bechtel
-BKSH & Associates
-CACI and Titan
-Custer Battles
-Lockheed Martin
-Loral Satellite
-Qualcomm

Cont’d…

…Cont’d

TWO
A regime change in Iraq had been planned in early 2001 by a neo-conservative think-tank involving Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush.

THREE
-General Wesley Clark was asked by the Bush administration to pin the 9/11 attacks on Saddam.

So who are we going to believe here...?

A decorated four-star general in the U.S. Army who was also a Supreme Allied Commander of NATO?

Or one of Saddam’s henchmen who was probably asked to lie in exchange for immunity and US citizenship?

Also, if the word of George Hormis is so credible, then why is it that the only time he made the claim was on FOX news with a neo-conservative shock-jock? Why aren’t they going to great lengths to prove his claims?

Not only that, but The Right conveniently ignore the fact that their beloved unofficial world leader, Bush, couldn’t even win an election without seriously manipulating the results. Heck, he can’t even string 2 sentences together! So give me just ONE good reason why anyone should give him a shred of credit…other than: “It suits our beliefs.”

So much for clear thinkers!

The Neo-conservatives (and Mr Boaz): 0

The REAL clear thinkers: A big and undeniable 1

Mr Man

I agree with you on this.

The importance of oil to the US and the personal connections of Bush, Cheney and Rice to the oil industry were fundamental reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

See my latest post on this at: http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Pete

Plantagenet,

Great post on your blog! You summarised the links between the Bush administration, Saudi Arabia and the oil industry very well. I didn’t realise they’d named oil tanker after Condoleezza…hilarious! The blatantly obvious is staring everyone in the face but some choose to ignore it.

I’m convinced that the only reason Howard has lead us into the Iraq mess was to strengthen our alliance with the US. Howard is too intelligent to be ignorant to everything you pointed out on in your blog.

It’s typical too that our mainstream media won’t mention any of it. Which is why, I guess, it’s so easy for some to keep their heads in the sand about it all.

FYI – I read your blog occasionally and find it interesting.

Anyway, I’d better make a correction to my last post before some die-hard Bush fan tries to point it out as if it proves me wrong on everything…

George Hormis has made his claim more than the one time on FOX News. It still doesn’t give his claim any more credibility though. I’m not saying he definitely DID lie. And maybe Iraq really DID have WMDs. But there is by far enough conflicting testimony and circumstantial evidence to seriously question the claims of Hormis.

What we DO know is that the Bush administration didn’t know for sure about the existence of WMDs at the time. Therefore, any findings that may happen aren’t going to mean much, nor will they be anything for The Right to gloat about.

True or false, the claims of Hormis in no way eliminate the ties between the oil industry and the Bush administration. Nor do they eliminate the real reason for the invasion; which are just soooo obvious it’s enough to make you laugh.

But I’d better stick the topic a bit here now that I’ve responded to Mr Boaz…

This article highlights some of the many reasons that I’m suspecting that the government introduced the sedition laws to start censoring us rather than protect us (for anyone who read the other threads on this topic).

This is about sedition and free speech so I suggest writers wander off the www.alliance.org.au and read the Media Muzzled report presented on World Press Freedom day and also read the gut wrenching speech by Paul McGeough about reporting from Iraq and other war zones - he is someone who has been to them all and retains a great humanity and compassion for the innocent victims he speaks to and for.

It is also about free speech but the question never asked about free speech is just how far are we allowed to go without censure.

Should Don Randall be allowed to abuse his colleagues because they don't agree with his cruel position on refugees or should he be shouted down?

Should a journalist invent an entire interview to maintain a position and not be sacked? How often should journalist or academics be allowed to plagiarise others hard work before they are pulled up?

Should vilifying people be allowed as part of our free speech if the people concerned are entirely innocent of all wrong doing? Like the Iraqi people who Howard accused of throwing the children overboard?

I guess I want to know when people are owed and apology and when should an apology be issued and accepted?

Grow up Marylyn,

The heretical range of opinions expressed on this thread, make it clear to anyone that Australia HAS free speech. The best way to debate free speech is to SHOW by example it appears.

However your kind of free speech in a world overpopulting itself towards the precipice of oblivion with the promise of 7 billion souls who will be prepared to kill each other for scarce OIL by 2010 is the product of a weak mind.
For example Australia's greatest future threat is a 10,000 strong boat people invasion of Australia that could attract international military protection for their safety and a loss of OUR sovereignty. It appears you would encourage boat people to keep this option afloat as it were. And what about the legitimate refugees who go through proper vetting channels to immigrate here? At the first sign of unscrupulous cutthroat characters jumping the queue and turning up at our doorstep unnanounced, you forget legitimates and fall to pieces in a fit of alzheimer's based compassion.

Weak minds can have their say but CANNOT expect to command issues when their immature ideas of equality place our nation at great future risk.

I respect your right to free speech but I demand my right to tell you to .... GROW UP.

The Australian Government no longer works in the interest of the Australian people.

As such, along the lines of Gandhi's "SATYAGRAHA = SOUL FORCE", I NO LONGER recognise the government - either Howard's Liberal Coalition or Beattie's Labour as LEGITIMATE political bodies with the right to determine Australian direction.

Regarding "SATYAGRAHA" - It is a form of non-violent protest where people make a, individual and personal, conscious decision to withdraw their moral support from governments and others that don't behave in a manner that the person making their own uncoerced decision deem appropriate.