|
Articles in the Age on plans to expand terror laws
|
Civil Rights Network
|
Aug 30, 2005 16:49 PDT
|
Calls for caution over new terror laws
August 30, 2005 - 10:40AM
Free speech could be the casualty of new laws being considered to
prevent radicals from encouraging terrorism, lawyers and civil
libertarians say.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has asked bureaucrats to examine whether
laws need to be overhauled after current legislation stopped the
government banning Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia.
Britain has already outlawed the group.
Current laws make it illegal for groups or individuals to plan, prepare
or foster terrorism but it is not an offence for them to encourage an
illegal act.
The government is considering similar laws to those created in Britain
in the wake of the July 7 bombing attack on three London Underground
trains and a bus.
Mr Ruddock said the government was undecided whether there should be
changes to the law but had been forced to consider the issue in the
context of the Hizb ut-Tahrir case.
"The issue arises whether there is some lesser form of incitement which
we would regard as unacceptable and which could encourage people to
carry out terrorist acts," he told reporters.
While acknowledging the importance of free speech, Mr Ruddock said he
believes the offence under consideration could help prevent a terrorist
attack.
"If you can avoid a terrorist act in this country by ensuring that
people who might advocate such acts look again at the way in which they
conduct themselves, and it has an impact on others, you would obviously
seriously look at it," he said.
The government has been warned not to be heavy-handed in its approach to
any new legislation.
The Law Council of Australia wants the government to justify the need
for wider terrorism laws.
"There is a real need to show that these new laws will curb terrorism
and not merely single out other cultures or religions in this
multicultural democracy," president John North said.
"It must be remembered that these laws may well attach to all sections
of the community - including our media outlets - and it has the
possibility of severely curtailing freedom of speech.
"In times of fear, it is easy for governments to impose ever (more)
draconian laws. Australians ... should look to their government not to
change laws without a proper forensic reason."
Labor backs stronger powers if they are proven to be necessary.
"Obviously, we live in a country where there is freedom of speech but if
that crosses the line ... then we do want to make sure our laws are able
to prevent that," opposition justice spokesman Nicola Roxon said.
Ms Roxon said she wants to ensure the issue is properly debated.
"I don't think we need to just copycat what's happening overseas, we
have very strong laws in place already, but if there is a gap then I
think we should consider it," she told ABC radio.
Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman warns
there is a very big difference between encouraging and justifying
terrorism.
"While clearly encouraging or inciting terrorism should be a criminal
offence, justifying or glorifying it, should not be," Mr O'Gorman said.
"It simply cannot be demonstrated that someone who justifies a
particular act of terrorist violence that that can demonstrate a cause
and effect on future terrorist acts."
Mr O'Gorman says the government will pay the price if it goes overboard
on laws now that it has the numbers in the Senate.
"If this government brings in laws which are seen to be heavy-handed,
they will wear the consequences in terms of alienating a significant
section of the very community they are trying to woo, that is the Muslim
community," he said.
Meanwhile, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has issued
a more detailed warning to Australians in Indonesia amid mounting
concern of a terrorist attack.
DFAT advised Australians to defer non-essential travel to Indonesia and
that Australians in Indonesia who are concerned for their safety should
consider leaving.
The most grave warnings are for the troubled provinces of Aceh and
Maluku.
"We continue to receive a stream of credible reporting suggesting that
terrorists are in the advanced stages of planning attacks against
western interests in Indonesia," the reviewed DFAT warning said.
Warning on 'dangerous' terror laws
By Brendan Nicholson
National Security Correspondent
August 31, 2005
PROPOSED laws to reduce the risk of terrorism in Australia could be
"inherently dangerous" and open to misuse, the Federal Government has
been warned.
A day after The Age revealed proposals for new criminal sanctions
against people who encourage or "glorify" terrorism, the Law Council of
Australia urged the Government to refrain from introducing "possibly
draconian" laws without full public consultation.
The warning came as a new AgePoll revealed growing public anxiety about
terrorism in Australia, with more than two-thirds of people now
believing an attack on home soil is likely within two years.
Law Council president John North, responding to the proposals for
tougher anti-terror laws, said the legal profession acknowledged the
need to curb terrorism but wanted to see strong evidence that such laws
would make Australia safer.
"Laws of this type in a robust democracy are inherently dangerous and
open to misuse by those with ulterior motives," Mr North said.
He said there should be wide community consultation before the
introduction of any laws that seriously restricted freedom of speech and
expression. Care was also needed to avoid aiming laws at specific
sections of Australia's multicultural community.
AAs revealed in The Age yesterday, the Government is closely watching a
review in Britain that would significantly widen the range of activities
that could be classed as encouraging, glorifying or inciting terrorism.
Following the London bombings, the Blair Government wants to create a
new offence of "fomenting" terrorism, making it a crime to encourage
someone to carry out a terrorist act or to condone terrorism anywhere in
the world.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said yesterday that while freedom of
speech was important, it was not a licence for groups to say anything
they liked.
He said it would be worth the Government looking at ways to make people
think twice about what they were saying if that prevented a terrorist
attack.
But judgements had to be made about protecting the security of
Australians while not unduly impeding freedom of speech and freedom of
the press. "These are very important values for us," Mr Ruddock said.
At present it is a crime in Australia to provide practical help to
someone intending to carry out an act of terrorism.
A new crime of fomenting terrorism could include writing or distributing
material, including verbally or on the internet, that justified or
glorified terrorist violence.
Shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon said the Government should not
blindly copy what was being done overseas. "We have very strong laws in
place already, but if there is a gap, then I think we should consider it
and debate it sensibly," she said.
"We live in a country where there's freedom of speech, but if that
crosses the line of encouraging people to commit violence or damage to
property, then we do want to make sure that our laws are able to prevent
that sort of incitement and encouragement."
The AgePoll, conducted at the weekend by ACNielsen, found 70 per cent of
respondents were expecting a terrorist attack in Australia within two
years — up from 66 per cent in March last year. More than one in four
believed an attack was either "very likely" or "extremely likely", while
43 per cent believed it was only "likely".
|
|
 |
|
