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 > Free speech or ‘sedition’? Prohibitions on encouraging violence > Comments

Free speech or ‘sedition’? Prohibitions on encouraging violence : Comments

By David Weisbrot, published 7/6/2006

There should be a line between protected freedom of expression and the reach of the criminal law.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
There is considerable subjectivity in the sedition criteria and its complex - as reflected in the article.

I imagine the Government, based on UK experience, really aimed the glorifying part at any "Mullahs in mosques" who consistently pushed the merits of assaults/hits on Australians whether overseas or in Australia.

I'd say the laws are intended for severly limited application - not to intimidate the inevitable commenters that follow on this string.

Security services have limited resources which means they apply these resources (and justifying laws) against the highest threats. This does not include "free thinkers" - otherwise I would have been roped in years ago.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 5:49:27 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 author said:

"Most of the concerns about the new sedition offences involved the potential for the law to overreach, and to inhibit free speech and free association."

I don't quite see this supposed potential.

I invisage possibly holding a political meeting/rally in Punchbowl Park (symbolic reasons) Sydney, where the primacy of AngloSaxon/Celt/Irish/Northern European Culture is firmly stated to be the unchallengable foundation of Australian society. All others are welcome in managable numbers within this framework.

I would not envisage urging any violence or physical harm to any other community in this.
Yet, such an act could be seen to be 'setting one group against another' I'd be interested in serious legal opinion on this.

We have such a situation politically anyway, but the philosophical underpinnings are unstated, except by such as Peter Costello referring to 'Australian Values' ...probably the closest.

When I read of Muslims in Canada allegedly planning to:

a) Storm the Parliment
b) Behead the Prime Minister

I am doubly motivated to firmly establish recognizable cultural boundaries in Australia.

I suspect that the reason the Al Qaeda Muslim sympathizers in Canada decided to plan this, is twofold.

1/ Canada has elected a less "Islam friendly" conservative government
2/ Canada has troops in Afghanistan.

Both of these could be taken to equal "War against Islam" and every syllable in the Quran related to the defense of Islam could and would be used as justification for the plan. The beheading is straight out of Quran Sura 8.12

["Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 13That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment,]

Stand up Australia....stand firm .. you DO have a culture.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 8 June 2006 6:35:26 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
Good article, though I'd like to see it go even futher.

Yes, sedition laws are political. The 'usual suspects' who are spreading fear about the laws forget that. It doesn't matter what the written law says. These laws will only be enforced if a Government:

a) Thinks it needs to
b) Thinks it will be able to get away with it.

I'm a bit critical of the 'chilling' effect mentioned in the article. It's our job to stand up to the Government - it's not the Government's job to make us feel good.

We shouldn't be asking the Government to "treat us nice" - we should be telling the Government 'this is what we will tolerate, and no further.

Also agree with Plantaganet about the limits faced by security services - like all Government bodies they are underfunded and have to make hard decisions about priorities

http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/344535725451 for a less frightened look at the laws, from people heavily involved in the Vietnam protests in the late 60s and early 70s.
Posted by David Jackmanson, Thursday, 8 June 2006 7:56:45 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
David Jackmanson,

Thanks. I just tried your link but think its under site maintenance.

I think the government would use considerable discretion in charging a person with sedition and almost always in combination with other charges for which physical evidence existed. A sedition charge alone would be so politically contentious that it would probably only be a supplement to other counter terror or standard criminal law charges.

That said I think the main value of the sedition law is as a deterrent to “seditious behaviour” by distinct groups of people.

I don’t know of any exact examples in Australia but relevant cases in Britain have been:

- Omar Bakri Muhammad a cleric, activist until 2005 leading figure within the British Islamist movement. Bakri announced that a “pact” between the British Government and Muslims had been “violated” blaming this breakdown on the decision to send British forces to Iraq. August 2005 Bakri left UK following stories the Government were planning to investigate certain Muslim clerics under little-used treason laws. He was banned from returning as his presence in Britain was “not conducive to the public good”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bakri_Muhammad

I don’t know if Britain has gone as far as Australia in “updating” its sedition laws but clearly the concept of DETERRENCE was effective above.

And

- Oswald Mosley, 1896 – 1980, founded the British Union of Fascists (BUF). Failed politician - he went on a study tour of the 'new movements' of Mussolini and other Fascists in 1931 and returned convinced that it was the way forward for him and Britain. BUF was anti-Communist, and anti Semitic.

Mosley established a corps of black uniformed paramilitary stewards nicknamed "blackshirts" who were frequently involved in violent confrontations in London. The government was sufficiently concerned to pass the Public Order Act 1936 which, amongst other things, banned political uniforms and quasi-military style organizations and came into effect on 1st January 1937.

In May 1940 Mosley, along with most active fascists in Britain, was interned under Defence Regulation 18B, and the BUF was later banned.

Times of national emergency more easily justify sedition/treason charges.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 8 June 2006 1:06:51 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
Planaganet,

Yep the link is still broken. I'd suggest a look when it's fixed -- it's a pretty hard-left site so there's a good chance you won't agree with a lot of stuff, but there are very interesting ideas popping up all the time.

As far as Moseley goes, I'm agree with what Orwell wrote as my guide there. In 1943, when Moseley was released, Orwell wrote that he thought that in the circumstances of 1940 the internment was perfectly proper, and that if the Germans had 'set foot' in England it would have been legitimate to shoot him. Given that Moseley was perfectly capable of trying to lead a quisling government, fair enough I say.

Sorry don't have an exact reference, but it is almost certainly in Volume 3 of the Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters.

According to the Wikipedia article, Omar Bakri Muhammad is a supporter of Wahabism, which is IMO a vicious, fundamentalist, anti-human branch of Islam.

While the use of treason laws may well be overkill in dealing with people like this, I see him as an enemy to me and the relatively free society I get to live in. I think that this society is worth defending against people like Mr Muhammad (correct mode of address?) I think that could include using the resources of the state to spy on him and his colleagues, if necessary.

Of course the crucial question is how to do this without employing stupid reactionary bigots as your secret police?
Posted by David Jackmanson, Friday, 9 June 2006 1:49:20 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
David

Agree with most of what you've said.

I don't think Omar would appreciate being called "Mr" as this is a very Western title and he is usually considered a "cleric". Maybe an Islamic reader (Irfy?) could help.

Years ago and especially in Joh's Queensland "employing stupid reactionary bigots as your secret police?" would have been a fair description. Police Special Branches were notorious bastions.

Apparently ASIO was full of ex military, ex police types (known as the "Cold Warriors") during the anti Vietnam demo days.

Political, publicity and operational problems in more recent times have meant that ASIO employees have had to be more balanced. ASIO officers are much more effective if they can blend into the community rather than seeming and looking a bit odd (let alone "fascist").

Its amazing when it comes to the nitty gritty on Sedition how few comments this OLO article is getting. It used to be the flavour of the month ;-)

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 9 June 2006 9:27:00 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
Pete,

Your 'flavour of the month' comment puts a finger directly on one of the big problems in conservative-left (see below) thought.

It's been a long time since the conservative-left thought hard and seriously about what they would do with power if they won it.

That means they base their media strategy on reacting to what is in the headlines, when they should be building a long-term plan to get convincing stories, and favourable mentions, in newspapers, tv, radio and blogs/forums.

So now, when sedition is not the MSM agenda, they have little to say.

Conservative-left: What most people think of as 'Radical'. Examples, 'Resistance' in Australia, 'Respect' or the Socialist Workers Party in the UK, anti-globalisation activists everywhere.

My agenda - new radical-left thought, that seriously discusses what would be required to take power and run society, and that clearly and coolly analyses the world without pathological hatred of the dominant state.
Posted by David Jackmanson, Friday, 9 June 2006 8:47:37 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
The latest news to hit the headlines with relations to "Sedition" laws was the Islamic Bookstore which had books on how to wire yourself up with explosives and commit Jihad.

Also Archbishop Pell has outlined in recent news that the Books also available at these bookstores contain messages of hate and violence.

This case went before the Australian Law of Sedition and this was not deemed "Seditious".

So I believe that a pretty good line to draw your conclusions. It is a pretty generous line, not so fine a line, but the line in which we all stand on Sedition laws.

There of course was the outcry of certain sectors of the public on this judgement which questioned all senses of realty.

Our Government representatives said they would review this case.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Saturday, 10 June 2006 11:39:30 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
Suebdootwo

Yeah some people see the availabilty in Australia of books on "how to wire yourself up with explosives and commit Jihad" as a loophole in Sedition laws. The Commonweaalth is apparently reviewing this "loophole".

Two reasons against banning such books is the internet alternative and any banning of a book would boost its popularity and "underground reprinting".

I think unintended positive publicity for jihadist or rightwing anti Muslim causes might result.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 10 June 2006 3:19:17 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
Politicians of the 21 century are against dissent coming from the people. I am all for dissent.
Posted by Spider, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 10:58:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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