The Australian Government is not perfect

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RunDMC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around concerns regarding proposed legislation in Australia that some participants perceive as infringing on freedom of speech and expression. The conversation touches on the implications of the draft Anti-Terrorism Bill, particularly a clause related to 'disaffection with the Government', and draws parallels with similar issues in other democracies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the proposed law may criminalize statements of disaffection towards the government, with one noting a maximum penalty of seven years in jail.
  • There is a suggestion that the law could be seen as a violation of freedom of speech, with participants questioning whether the reactions to the bill are overreactions.
  • One participant highlights the lack of access to the draft bill, noting that the ACT minister's office was instructed not to provide copies, which raises fears about transparency.
  • Another participant draws a comparison between the Australian situation and the United States, mentioning the failure of the Online Freedom of Speech Act and expressing extreme disapproval of those who voted against it.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential misuse of anti-terrorism laws to distract from other legislative issues, with accusations of opportunistic tactics by politicians.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of the proposed legislation, with no clear consensus on whether the reactions are justified or if the law is indeed a threat to freedom of speech. Multiple competing perspectives remain regarding the nature and impact of the bill.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the absence of the draft bill and the lack of transparency surrounding its contents, which contributes to uncertainty about its implications. There are also references to historical context and comparisons with other political systems that may influence the discussion.

RunDMC
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
The Australian Government is not perfect.

Sorry, just had to get that one out before it becomes illegal here. At the rate we're going, it looks like a statement such as the one above will be outlawed at about 3pm today local time.

I hope they don't pass the law retrospectively, or I'm a criminal! Yikes :bugeye:

:smile: :frown: :mad: :devil:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/10/31/Arts/aussielaw_051031.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It does sound very Communist, judging from the response, but without actually looking at the bill, it would be hard to tell.

Is this a gross violation of the freedom of speech and expression, or is it just something the writers are overreacting to ?

A link to the proposals in the bill ?
 
more like fascist... but why am i reading about that on the cbc site? doesn't the abc have any info on it?
 
Well, perhaps a bit of an over-reaction, but the clause in the 'sedition' section that has everyone upset is 'disaffection with the Government'. (huh?) The maximum penalty if I recall, is 7 years jail.

The former 'sedition' law which is part of the existing crimes act allows for such statements to be made as a reasonable journalists column, argument, play or parody, petition, demonstration, opposition politics, etc. The bad news is that the crimes act only allows this 'Get out of jail free card' option on laws enacted in its own set or previous legislation, not the current or future ones.

I'm all for detaining suspects, even shoot-to-kill in the current set of proposals, but that sedition clause makes my grumpy.

For an ABC link, see:
http://news.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...oday/content/2005/s1494417.htm&cid=1102095076
 
Gokul43201 said:
A link to the proposals in the bill ?

Yikes, sorry, still looking for the link, it is supposed to be on the ACT minister's site amongst the media releases, but I can't find it. I did however, find this:

"The latest draft of the Anti-Terrorism Bill was about to be forwarded from the Commonwealth Office of Parliamentary Counsel, but that the office had been instructed not to provide the ACT with a copy."

http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.asp?media=734&section=24&title=Media Release&id=24

OK, I'm getting scared.
 
Last edited:
Urging disaffection against the government and urging disaffection against the sovereign could be seen as sedition under some interpretations of the draft law
I thought being disaffected with the government was a natural part of being Australian. :biggrin:

Howard's probably the biggest cause for people being "disaffection against the government" - he'll have to put himself away. :smile:

Crikey, what is it with Bush and Howard, and maybe Blair, too? :rolleyes:


Edit: Answer to my question with a question - White Anglo-Saxon Paranoia?
 
Last edited:
I don't think the situation is much different in America although for different reasons. The House failed to pass the Online Freedom of Speech Act. The Act would have made online political expression exempt from campaign finance law.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012135.php

I think those who voted against deserve to be thrown to a firing squad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RunDMC said:
Yikes, sorry, still looking for the link, it is supposed to be on the ACT minister's site amongst the media releases, but I can't find it. I did however, find this:

"The latest draft of the Anti-Terrorism Bill was about to be forwarded from the Commonwealth Office of Parliamentary Counsel, but that the office had been instructed not to provide the ACT with a copy."

http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.asp?media=734&section=24&title=Media Release&id=24

OK, I'm getting scared.
I'm scared too, RunDMC. I heard on the news a couple of days ago that "hackers" had gotten onto the ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope's website and removed the initial draft bill he had put online; I've just checked and yes, it's gone. He was only given a copy of the new draft once he agreed not to publish it electronically. So we're not allowed to read the laws we will be living under - certainly something to be scared about.

Even worse is how the anti-terrorist laws are being used to take attention off the new industrial relations laws. And even worse than that is how Howard managed to stifle opposition to the anti-terrorist bill from the states by asserting, with no back-up evidence/facts whatsoever, that there is now a 'direct terrorist threat'! These politicians never cease to amaze me with their blatant opportunistic tactics and (I suspect strongly) lies.

In any case, as others have pointed out, it's not much different in other so-called 'democracies'.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
15K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
60
Views
13K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
17K