News The Australian Government is not perfect

[RunDMC]

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



http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/10/31/Arts/aussielaw_051031.html

 

[Gokul43201]

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 ?

 

[fourier jr]

more like fascist... but why am i reading about that on the cbc site? doesn't the abc have any info on it?

 

[RunDMC]

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

 

[RunDMC]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

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

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


Edit: Answer to my question with a question - White Anglo-Saxon Paranoia?

 

[sid_galt]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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'.