Transparent processes and a more effect way to openly challenge decisions MUST be more easily accessible and publicised.

A "No Wrong Door" Policy is impossible to deter or evade. It is pressing, if there is any integrity to be found in Australia's committment to our International role as effective and responsible problem solvers in the current, highly complex maze of internal and external events.

We have a lot to learn Australia.

We ought to try harder not be part of the problem.

Structural Violence is a serious international issue in governance within all regions. i.e., Institutional Reforms are required everywhere NOT just in the UN. We are evolving, in a changing world, let us keep up with it.

We, as Australian's must do more to ensure that our humanitarian agreements are safe guarded and better protected through our laws of operation and intelligence.

Safer Communities is about Crime Prevention, at all levels.

Civic Engagement is imperative as a protocol on how we inter-relate and work together for a stance toward "Collective Securities".

Neglete of the UN protocols will mean we are isolating ourselves from on greater tranparency and long-term trust issues, in the ways we operate. This leads to a further breakdown of understanding between international, regional and local values of acceptance and respect, from those whom we need it from most.

Apathy breeds Hate, Misunderstanding, and often leads to a perplexity of profound Silo's and other Cultures of Crime.

The present breakdown mobilsed by mis-information and political willfulness and distructive SPIN, mires this issue, which is one "ALL Australians" are otherwise deeply concerned about.

There needs to be a huge improvement. We are not stupid and the improvements we make now would mean we become more in touch with the anwser to these critical processing and security asociated proble-solving targets sooner, as a smarter nation, rather than later.

No one in there right mind wants a terror cultivated society. Our sensiblity on these matters must be SAFE but stripped of the needless re-production of FEAR.

.

This is a well intentioned, but deluded, article that pushes the line that the UN should be relied on as a counter terrorism coordinator and perhaps an agency. The problem is the UN leaks like a sieve, contains many nations and individuals who express themselves through terrorism and it prizes slow, well argued, consensus above all else.

Not a recipe for giving the green light to a Predator missile strike on someone looking like bin Laden, in Pakistan (even the US couldn't agree on that - pre 9/11).

The author said:

"Overall, UNAA believes that the law should err on the side of sustaining rather than restricting established human rights affirmed in the various international instruments to which Australia is a party."

I don't think the law should "err" on any side. Judges and courts should abide by laws made by the Australian Government (however much some judges wish to revolt against the Terrorism laws)

The author also said:

"Accountability for decisions on potentially controversial matters such as proscribing terrorist organisations should be transparent, and processes to challenge decisions should be easily accessible and publicised."

- should there be a requirement that (usually) confidential information (maybe from foreign intelligence bodies) be publicized to justify "proscribing" a terrorist organisation?

- should members of (potentially?) proscribed terrorist organisations be given a high podium to air their causes/hatreds and gain legitimacy?

- as ASIO would do most of the legwork for the "Reviewer" (another review process) should it be further distracted from its role of stopping bombs going off?

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

The UN - a bloated, ineffective bureaucracy that provides green pastures for discarded politicians and "eminent persons" who strut the world stage for the rest of their lives, and all at our expense.

Their grand experiments to make the world a better place, have a track record of achieving exactly the opposite - additionally - their methods are too often underhand and overall motives sinister.

Whilst refreshing that UN recognises the invasive nature of governments and the effect on people, it will not accept anything that challenges UN dogma. The UN will never recognise that Islam wherever it goes, is unique in the world for being the primary cause of most all terrorism.

It is preferred that all people be subject to ever increasing restrictions and infringements. 'Thou shalt not profile', so instead of targeting high risk elements - we are all drawn into the pot and by default considered a threat. Non muslims are made suffer body searches, perfume bans, scissors and knitting needles bans and suchlike. Mere tinsel against a terrorist.

The UN wants a "safer society" and it's "new world order" by removing all rights and means of self protection for individuals, in the hope that the bad and the mad will somehow become good. ALL violence is abhorred - even legitimate violence used by good people to defend self or property. The end effect is that the good become disarmed, impotent and potential victims of criminals, terrorists, governments and the UN itself.

Ask the victims of pacifism in Rawanda. On the other hand, UN Article 51 recognises the right of member states to self defence - but actively pursues the opposite for individuals.

In short - Terrorism WORKS.

Western society is under assault from Islam and our responses prove we are indeed terrorised - or too damn stupid to be practical and target the problem directly.

YOU try putting a management proposal to the UN. I have many times.

The UN is the authority, the repository of all wisdom, and their internally generated response is confirmed in the recommendations made by David Purnell - MORE bureaucracy!

At the very least, the members of an organisation that it is proposed to ban should have the opportunity to defend it. That opportunity should be before a court, with appropriate appeals on matters of fact and of law.

Allowing the Governor in Council to ban an organisation, and for people then to be subject to imprisonment before they have even had a chance to argue for its innocence is weakening our democratic institutions too greatly. It is open to serious abuse. (Imagine the political effect, with a tame press, of banning an organisation that, say, Julia Gillard was a member of, in the lead up to an election. It wouldn't matter that the banning was subsequently shown to be on false grounds--look at the children overboard affair.)

The dangers of the loss of civil liberties are great--it can lead to tyranny and civil war. Don't people read history?

Hi ozbib

Best to read the "Australian Government's" submission http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pjcis/securityleg/subs/sub14.pdf to the Review of Security and Counter-Terrorism Legislation that Purnell hotlinks in his article.

The submission looks to be ASIO's under a bland name and basically says:
- the decision to proscribe is discussed by DFAT, AGs and ASIO [and probably their Ministers] before is goes to the Governor-General to consider and sign as a Regulation
- they don't want to give advanced warning to organisations that are about to be proscribed as illegal terrorist organisations (page 5)[presumably they don't want members to go to ground or flee overseas beforehand, etc]
- the main emphasis is that there are processes already available for citizens is to have proscriptions reviewed but AFTER the fact (page 3)

Its seems to be a balancing act. Its something like the police discouraging people who wish to join a Triad Group "A" specialising in shooting up Chinese restaurants. The danger of loss of life from the shootouts is so great that it justifies making Triad Group "A" illegal to discourage potential members joining.

Julia Gillard and the ALP have little relationship to religiously based Groups of men (any women?) who aim to shoot up/blow up their own (host?) society. The records/rap sheet of these Groups is based on info (recent history or current) from overseas and picked up in Australia.

The "children overboard affair" is also different. That was secrecy for dissicated coconut's political gain rather than a desire to protect us from getting blown up.

From all this I reckon don't trust politicians who have been in power too long. Public servants who are/were too close to politicians are harder to assess...

I think all this is different from the history of alienated groups who say they want to kill/maim a society in which they live. The political aspirations of some billionaire's son (Osama bin Laden) to take over a rich Kingdom (bin Ladens kicking out the Sauds) delude many of a worthy religion. Too many follow an easy path (bomb recipes/chemicals and all) to oblivion.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/