Australia's New Anti-Terrorist Laws

[Adora]

(X-posted to IIDB)

The current Australian government (I voted for the other guy!) is trying to pass new supposed "Anti-Terror" legislation that contains various controversial issues such as shoot-to-kill allowances for police and especially laws regarding sedition.

Mediawatch tackled the ambiguously worded sedition clauses tonight on its program, and pointed out that, because they are so vague, someone such as the journalist & filmaker John Pilger (who suggested back in 2004 he understood the mindset behind individuals who view Australian and other international military personel as occupying forces who should be attacked) could be charged, along with the program & organisation that aired the interview, with sedition.

Now, I find this disturbing, since these bills are going to do sweet fuck all in preventing terrorism, and will simply persecute those who speak out against the government - every journalist, political commentator and Australian filmaker's reason for living - when they criticise policy etc.

There's the transcript of the segment here on the ABC's Mediawatch website, which links to the relevant sedition sections of the bill in PDF form and the legal advice sought by Mediawatch from legal professionals regarding the bill.

It's good to see Mediawatch discussing this, considering many of their segments criticise the government's policies in regards to media and contradictory statements made within media communications by political leaders.

The complete and full text of the Anti-terror laws can be access here through the ACT minister John Stanhope's webpage. Makes for interesting and scary reading, if you can slog through all 107 pages.

[xyza]

They are talking about a shoot to kill policy after the major fuck up that's just happened here ???

Actually are the Australian police already armed?

[Adora]

They're armed, though I'm not entirely clear on their STK allowances. A few years ago there were problems with investigations into shootings by the Victorian police in certain situations, but whether or not STK allowances currently extend to terrorist situations is beyond me.

And yeah, after the fuck-up in the UK, it does really surprise me.

[fragment]

Grim stuff. There's plenty of the same kind of crap here in the UK too. I'm glad my home country has mostly managed to stay away from this kind of madness - I hope it stays that way so I have a safe little bolt-hole to run off to. Adora, what are the attitudes of the Australian public towards these laws? Are the majority in support? Are there any significant movements to oppose them, and how are they doing so? In the UK several prominent judges have opposed the more draconian measures in anti-terror legislation and ruled against them, are the Australian judiciary likely to do the same?

[Adora]

Well, you have to remember, this is the Australian public who voted the Liberals into power. They're fucking slackarse morons. As long as they get their cheap fucking petrol and lower house prices they don't give a fuck about human rights. I think the only opposition to these is going to come from the legal and human rights branches of Asutralian society, and the vaguely responsible government-criticising media, who are all on the margins of society and do not express really mainstream views. Australians in general aren't well-informed of civil or human rights (thus, Howard's still there) becuase, well, it's complex, but mostly through laziness. They don't want to get off their butts and do something, so they just let it slide.

It really sickens me. It's that same awful feeling I had in my gut just after the last election. I guess this must be what a lot of US liberals feel a lot of the time...

[BigBlue2]

Originally Posted by fragment

What are the attitudes of the Australian public towards these laws? Are the majority in support?

Apoll that was done a few days shows that a significant majority (60%+) support the anti-terror laws in general, but about the same majority is opposed to the STK laws specifically.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Adora

Well, you have to remember, this is the Australian public who voted the Liberals into power. They're fucking slackarse morons. As long as they get their cheap fucking petrol and lower house prices they don't give a fuck about human rights. I think the only opposition to these is going to come from the legal and human rights branches of Asutralian society, and the vaguely responsible government-criticising media, who are all on the margins of society and do not express really mainstream views. Australians in general aren't well-informed of civil or human rights (thus, Howard's still there) becuase, well, it's complex, but mostly through laziness. They don't want to get off their butts and do something, so they just let it slide.

It really sickens me. It's that same awful feeling I had in my gut just after the last election. I guess this must be what a lot of US liberals feel a lot of the time...

Welcome to my world.

I understood that Howard was called "Bansai" Howard because he was a little Bush.

[Carnivale Ed]

Hot off the presses :

PRIME Minister John Howard is prepared to make some concessions on the Government's new anti-terror laws following pressure from the states and territories opposed to a contentious shoot-to-kill clause ... State and territory leaders last week raised concerns that police would be given the authority to use lethal force against a suspect being taken into preventative detention ... Mr Howard last night said he was happy to change the provisions as long police had the authority to take someone into custody if they resisted arrest as part of a preventative detention order.

[Paul H.]

"It's good to see Media Watch discussing this, "...yes.

You/we should appreciate that Media Watch even exists.

Best TV show in the.. well, world. IMO.