Well, not really, Pilger was just the sexed up example Media Watch needed to test the limits of free speech under our proposed laws on sedition. Trying to figure out what sedition means in a modern day media saturated context is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
John Pilger: …we’ve always depended on resistances to get rid of occupiers, to get rid of invaders.
And what we have in Iraq now is I suppose the equivalent of a kind of Vichy Government being set up. And a resistance is always atrocious, it’s always bloody. It always involves terrorism.
You can imagine if Australia was occupied by the Japanese during the Second World War the kind of resistance there would have been, and so on. We’ve seen that all over the world.
Now, I think the situation in Iraq is so dire that unless the United States is defeated there that we’re likely to see an attack on Iran, we’re likely to see an attack on North Korea and all the way down the road it could be even an attack on China within a decade, so I think what happens in Iraq now is incredibly important.
Tony Jones: You mean defeated militarily?
John Pilger: Yes.
Tony Jones: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?
John Pilger: Well yes, they’re legitimate targets. They’re illegally occupying a country. And I would have thought from an Iraqi’s point of view they are legitimate targets. They have to be, sure.
Äî Lateline, ABC TV, 10 March 2004
All in all it proved the limits of this vague and anachronistic piece of legislation. The shows website has also posted the relevant docs to legal opinion it has received on this, video to come later. My two dollars were well spent tonight.
Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?
John Pilger: Well yes, theyÄôre legitimate targets.
Should he be jailed for sedition? No. Can we revoke his passport? Why not?
Can we hope Pilger’s life is shortened due to natural causes. You bet. That way this oxygen thief would no longer be adding to global warming by exhaling Co2.
Some think Pilger deserves to be locked up with Omran and Co, along with their Vichy collaborators in the ABC and SBS. After all aren’t we entitled to resist these outsiders and invaders? Viva the revolution! The resistance will be wearing their indigenous Andrew Bolt T-shirts naturally, to get rid of the foreign occupier Che Guevera ones mentioned here
http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,17023599-31037,00.html
Too right, these are the laws we need to defend freedom of speech.
I think penalising John Pilger and his ilk would be a good use for the new sedition laws. He is, after all, actively supporting the enemy.
However, the government probably wouldn’t go after him. Typically they leave a big margin of safety when enforcing sedition laws — when was the last time someone was charged with sedition in Australia?
I think charging John Pilger with sedition would be appropriate, since he is openly supporting the enemy in wartime.
However, the government probably wouldn’t actually go for him, since it rarely charges anyone under such laws. When was the last time an Australian was charged with sedition?
Wasn’t some bloke charged with sedition in the early 1960′s for encouraging independence in PNG?
I don’t know much about Pilger, except that he’s someone reliably trotted out in these situations to give a statement the foamers will react to with equal reliability. Nevertheless, listening to the question and his answer, I see both how what he said doesn’t qualify as seditious and how the government could use the new provisions against him should this legislation pass. He only says, finally, that for the Iraqi insurgency, foreign troops represent an illegal occupation force and as such are legitimate targets of their resistance. The only seditious aspect of that is the characterisation of the occupation as illegal. That point can be argued, although only by people reasonably inclined to analysis in the first place and reasonably well-informed. But the phrasing does leave him open to the charge. Of greater concern is Lateline’s participation and equivalent liability under the new laws. It would be hard to argue “good faith” when just booking Pilger is bound to end up as inflammatory.
The new sedition laws are a classical John Howard program to intimidate and wedge his ideological opponents using the legal ignorance of a nation as both a smokescreen and a justification.
RWDBs will have an important role to play in the new AuSStralia: The unofficial spies for the new Star Chambers. Congratulations EP, CL, Joe C and the rest of you, you’ve practically won. Soon the blogsphere will be all yours to spew your hatred of any remaining dissent to John Howard’s final solutions. I hope you will be pleased and proud of your one party state.
There’s really no point for me to debate openly anymore, as most things I say, even some legal opinions, will soon be illegal.
Liebensraum for RWDB, that shall be be your motto.
“Trotted out”. Nice work, Greg.
How hypocritical it is of Peter Kemp to complain about suppression of free speech, when he openly advocates silencing anyone who disagrees with his own crazy opinions.
Very much like yourself, EP. Except, naturellement, that you really are crazy.
EP, I’ve read your defences of free speech ad nausea.
However, you’ve proven once again that you are nothing more that a propaganda mouthpiece whose only interest is defending those who you agree with.
Peter
What was that piece about lacking in humour? Take a deep breath, push down and relax. The sun will rise tomorrow, I promise.
Jethro: Correct. The man’s name was Brian Cooper, and he worked for the Department of Native Affairs. He killed himself shortly after his appeal failed.
I think this shows exactly how dubious sedition laws are, and why we should very very cautious about the government claiming this sort of power to imprison people for “disloyalty”.
So if the last time anyone was charged with sedition was 40 years ago, and all the communists and anarchists and revolutionaries who have advocated the overthrow of the government since then have been untouched — what exactly is the problem?
I’ve made quite clear on this and other forums that I’m far from satisfied with the government’s overall security package. Does this mean I’ve been defamed by Peter Kemp? Will he therefore advocate his own prosecution?
And it’s only a “one party state”, Peter, because the public reacted with such overwhelming hostility to the violent, mentally deranged liar that Labor tried to con the electorate into voting for at the last election.
CL,
The only person I can recall being violent in a campaign was wee Johnny on Jim Carlton in 1987 when he had to be physically taken fom him hands on throat.
Liar,
Hmm,
what about his speech to the press clun in 2001 and what ONA had prepared.
II’m damned sure Miles Jordana would have known the truth before he gave the speech.
mentally deranged. Anybody who though Iraq posed a threat to World peace given their pathetic defce capability was certainly mentally deranged!!1
Yeah, Peter, the public voted for the other mentally deranged liar. You get the government you deserve.
OT: Death of Rosa Parks.
She was arrested for not giving up her bus seat – a seditious act in the Montgomery, Alabama, of 1955.
A great lady.
The problem, EP, is that they’re updating sedition law. Why would they do that if they intended not to use it?
Fyodor:
“the public voted for the other mentally deranged liar. You get the government you deserve”.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. So you think the entire electorate- left and right are stark raving lunatics? If you then extend this out a little further, your assertion is that you are the only one sane enough to see it.
correct CL,
a great lady whose sedition was truly justified!
Your continued defence of Latham is touching, Homer – if somewhat bizarre.
Johnny, Carlton, hands on throat – wtf are you talking about old friend?
Howard didn’t say Saddam was a threat to anyone. The United Nations did – repeatedly. Take it up with Kofi Annan.
Somewhat related: looks like George Galloway – received millions in dirty oil bribes from Father Saddam.
Gorgeous G, of course, is a hero to the left.
CL old buddy,
In 1987 election when Keating showed the sums were wrong Howard has his hands on Jim Carlton’s throat and had to be literally pulled off him.
Now that is violence.
In his speech to Parliament howard said Iraq were a threat to World peace.
Only US and a couple of others thought Saddam was a threat after the Blix report.
Chirac was right and Bush was wrong indeed apaprt from correctly identifying Iraq on the map was anything else correct in Poell’s speech to the security council?
What’s truly bizarre about the Medja Watch story is that even they realized just how extreme the PilgerÄôs comments were.
Maybe I am an old fashioned type but when an Australian national advocates the killing of Australian military personnel, shouldnÄôt it be seen as an act of treason? WasnÄôt Mosely jailed in Britain during the war for doing pretty much the same thing?
The dictionary definition of treason is:
1. Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
The PilgerÄôs comments would fall within this definition as Medja WatchÄôs assertion explained. Who has a problem with jailing anyone who advocates the killing of Australian military personnel? Is it therefore wrong of me to advocate the murder of the Pilger? It’s kind of the same thing, right. And I guess some of you would support it, if you think the law is wrong.
Howard had his hands over JIm Carlton’s throat in the 87 election campaign after Keating shot the economic policy because of bad maths.
Howard had to be physically restrained.
can someone tell me why I am told my comment couldn’t get on the site and then suddenly it got on.
Is LP being attacked by WMDs?
How many of you are going to continue posting after the new sedition laws are passed?
I know I’m not.
Even though I love Australia and have been circumspect in my comments I’ve felt the sting of internet attack dogs before.
(BTW what is a RWDB? I keep seeing references to this.)
RWDB = “right wing death beast”
Spooks at Russell Square
Won’t bother with blogs. At least,
If you are honest…
No, I think the majority of the electorate that voted for the gumby got the mentally deranged liar it deserved. Unfortunately, the rest of us also have to lump Captain “Big IL” liberal and his band of no-good hacks.
Yay for liberal democracy.
Homer
“can someone tell me why I am told my comment couldnÄôt get on the site and then suddenly it got on”.
Wonders of science, homer.
Are you sure it wasn’t the reverse?
Homer
Must be the wonders of science
You sure it wasn’t in reverse order.
tssk
Don’t be such a scaredy cat. How’s this for a deal. If you get hit under the new laws I’ll fork over the bail money and the fine. We’ll get Homer to do the jail time. He’ll be asking the warden, “how came I couldn’t get in jail and now I did”.
BTW before the invasion of Iraq Pilger was telling everyone ad nauseam that Iraq did not have WMDs and he was a weapons inspector. Just like the French, Dutch, Polish,Hungarian and many other freedom fighters (resistance,insurgents)in Europe in the 40′s, the insurgents feel that the foreign occupiers are the enemy and I do believe, that is what Pilger was trying to point out and he is not an enemy of Australia, instead an honest observer of the whole picture. This is what must never be alloud to be supressed by Govts, inventing new laws just to suit the leaders of that Govt.
This is something that some here cannot understand, freedom can be taken away by govts keeping the people frightened
You do have to wonder why Pilger continues to legitimise the Iraq insurgency particularly when they are blowing up their own – are Iraqi citizens the illegal occupiers?
You also have to wonder why the ABC and others continue to waste publically funded bandwidth on re-presenting his views.
Sounds like a match-up, Homer. Iron Mark preferred his combatants to be at least 20 or 30 years older than himself. That was his idea of a quality box.
Pilger did more than just mention the point of view of the insurgents — he said he wanted them to win and for our side to lose. That’s treason.
It’s a bit difficult to comment here as the comments only load after several attempts. I think the server hamster should be given a rest and replaced with a fresh one.
CL, you are being naughty,
According to the people there the old man king hit Iron Mark and no swing from him was observed.
This was confirmed by both supporters and foes of him.
And that taxi-driver got his Warwick caught in the door accidentally I suppose.
I doubt it CL given he had a substantial piece of Iron Mark’s possesions iwth him at the time!
Joe C, it’s not just me I have to think of. It’s my family, and the admins of the site I post at.
While I feel I’m way to the right of Pilger, the fact is that an annoyed right winger might want to take some left winger down a peg by reporting them.
It’s not a risk I’m willing to take. Post Melbourne Cup I won’t be posting anywhere (unless I feel the need to point out the flaws of the ALP, and let’s face it Latham and the rest have that one wrapped up.)
Unless someone can explain to me the line where debate ends and sedition begins. Especially when we involved in the war on terror.
Seditious? It was a local ordinance she broke. Equating civil disobedience to sedition is a bit of a stretch, isn’t it?
The whole ‘sedition’ issue is a beat-up, IMHO. These provisions have been included in the Crimes Act 1914 for decades. The Act contains a whole lot of anchronistic offences such as ‘unlawful sounding’ that need to be cleaned out or brought up to date.
The same with the Act’s definition of ‘treason’. Arguably, the moratorium marchers of the 70′s were committing treason by marching in support of the Viet Cong at a time when the ADF was engaged in combat operations against them, but the government never entertained the idea of charging them with that offence.
On the other hand, if a whole bunch of paranoid lefties shut up because their own hysterical propaganda has convinced them that John Howard’s black helicopters are going to take them away, it might be a bonus …
Equating civil disobedience to sedition is a bit of a stretch, isnÄôt it?
No.
Forgive me for quoting this in full:
According to The Australian, ‘up to 80 Australian Muslims could immediately be placed under effective house arrest under the GovernmentÄôs proposed anti-terror laws.Äô
The laws mean they could each be required to wear tracking devices, or prevented from working, or using the telephone or internet, or communicating with certain people.[...]
Previously, the Government has had no effective powers over these people, almost all of whom are Muslims, because laws prohibiting training with terrorist groups came into force only in July 2002 and were not retrospective.
However, under the proposed new laws, such people can be subjected to tough so-called control orders if authorities still believe they pose a security risk.
All this without trial or charges, on the say-so of the spooks who insisted that Iraq was awash with WMDs!
One of the people who brought us this doubleplusgood piece of legislation is Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. Now, Peter Beattie, like so many Queensland Labor politicians, first became involved in politics through the anti-Springbok protests of 1971.
On 21 July 1971, he attended a rally against the tour of South AfricaÄôs rugby team and was savagely beaten by police. He later wrote: ‘Even though I was the one who had been assaulted, I was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. [...] I will never forgive or forget [being] ‘verballedÄô by the police who manufactured the most incredible statements about the whole thing.Äô
Evidently, he understands the word ‘neverÄô in a unique sense.
LetÄôs briefly think about what the 2005 terrorism laws might have meant had they been applied to the protesters of 1971.
Had the police possessed the powers then that Beattie has given them now, rather than administering a simple beating on the spot, they could have taken the young Peter into preventative custody. He would have been unable to tell his family or friends where he was or what was happening to him — for, if he said he was in detention, he would have faced five years gaol.
He would, in other words, have been utterly at the mercy of police Äî the same police who had no compunction about beating him senseless in public and lying about it. What do you think would have happened to him in secret detention?
Remember, many of the activists rallying against the apartheid tour supported the African National Congress, an organisation regarded by authorities as a terrorist group. Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a man evidently ahead of his time, had already declared a state of emergency because of the protests.
Looking back on the Springbok tour, Beattie wrote: ‘ItÄôs one of those indelible things imprinted in my mind about oppression, about violence, about excessive power.Äô That indelible impression has clearly vanished. And why? He told The Age:
[I]f we ended up with a position where we had a terrorist attack in this nation and we werenÄôt ready and we didnÄôt have the laws in place, let me tell you whose heads would be on the block: the Prime Minister and every state leader in this nation.
Well, thatÄôs all right, then. Our liberties are signed away Äî but BeattieÄôs electoral future is secured.
http://www.sleepybrain.net/nowhere.html
It’s probably quite pointless to say it again, but here goes:
* control orders can only be issued in the case where a terrorist act is reasonably believed by the AFP to be imminent
* the temporary detention of the person concerned would significantly reduce the risk of the terrorist act occurring
* the Attorney-General and a court must agree that the above criteria have been met
* detention can only be for 48 hours with limited extension abilities
* the human rights of the detainee must be respected
* all appeal provisions are preserved, and the Ombudsman’s intervention powers are legislatively enshrined
* the detainee’s right to legal representation are preserved.
Rob,
you only need decent intelligence to convict people of either killing people or attempting to kill people.
neither you nor EP have shown how the proposed legislation will facilitate this.
If you do I will support you until then I won’t.
So is all law-breaking seditious? Or just when you willfully break laws that you believe are unjust? Tim Blair and I finally have something in common. He willfully speeds on the open road, I willfully obtain illegitimate copies of out-of-print music. At least we are proving sedition to be a word with so broad a meaning as to be meaningless.
No, not all law-breaking is seditious. Only that deemed against the political interests of the current govt. As Media Watch says, the laws of sedition have a very ignobel history…
Rob, you’ve clearly never known of someone who has been abused by these kinds of laws.
“* control orders can only be issued in the case where a terrorist act is reasonably believed by the AFP to be imminent”
Oh yeah? What about the Jack Thomas case?
(sorry I can’t spell)
What about the Jack Thomas case? No control orders there as far as I know.
As for convicting people — that is exactly the problem. You can’t wait for a judicial process that may take years when a terrorist attack is imminent. That’s the whole point of the control order.
This simply argues for better intelligence gathering–not tougher terror laws. Name one, single precedent for the scenario you suggest. Look, as Raimond Gaita has patiently pointed out time after time, many, many more people in the US were killed in workplace accidents than the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Put this in perspective. These laws aren’t going to make Australians any safer–only better intelligence-gathering will do that. Arresting people without charge (as happened in the Jack Thomas case) and stripping them of their basic rights is futile: why not charge them immediately with a terror offence if you’re that sure and “you can’t wait for a judicial process”? Why not be open & less secretive about it? Or would this show up all the govt blunders? Or (one-size-fits-all-excuse): will it pose a threat to our ‘national security’?
What happened to Jihad Jack? I’ve lost touch with that story. Was he convicted?
weathergirl, you have a point. Frankly, I don’t quite see what these control orders are designed to achieve. I’d have thought conventional powers of arrest would suffice if someone could be shown to be so involved in an imminent terrorist act that their detention would materially reduce the risk of it taking place. Why not just arrest them?
Has the AFP anywhere explained this?
I’d say the reason we need detention powers is so that people who can’t be convicted on the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, but who are known to be likely terrorists, can be restrained.
The legal system we have is not designed to deal with internal war, and needs to be modified accordingly.
As I said, EP, name one precedent for this. Our existing terror laws cover this scenario, anyway.
Rob, Jack (despite media claims, he has never called himself ‘Jihad Jack’) is under trial as we blog. It seems likely the case will be thrown out of court, but the fed govt has spent millions of taxpayers’ dollars and it has admitted its only ‘evidence’ is a statement extracted (required by law: allegedly) under torture in a lawless Pakistani prison, where Jack was held without charge and detained for 5 months. He has since been charged with no violent crime. The Law Institute of Victoria wrote to the Attorney-General about this, and several high-level SCs and QCs have spoken out in support of Jack’s case.
You can get the latest on the Justice 4 Jack website: http://www.justice4jack.com
And by the way, EP, it’s not only terror suspects who can be detained. It’s people like me, who, through my work, speak with terror suspects or even the families of terror suspects. Under the new laws, if I lend these people ten bucks, or have any notes about these people, I can be held without charge. There was an SBS journalist who covered this: already, the existing laws are draconian. Her hard disk was confiscated and she was threatened.
“And by the way, EP, itÄôs not only terror suspects who can be detained. ItÄôs people like me, who, through my work, speak with terror suspects or even the families of terror suspects. Under the new laws, if I lend these people ten bucks, or have any notes about these people, I can be held without charge. There was an SBS journalist who covered this: already, the existing laws are draconian. Her hard disk was confiscated and she was threatened.”
Irespective of how I end up viewing these laws (still not sure), I would not find the actions of the government as you describe them above as particularly offensive.
Here is an extract the actual proposed legislation for detention:
It’s hardly a case of open slather, as weathergirl would have us believe.
It’s a very reasonable preventive measure.
I still don’t like the legislation, especially the fact that detainees are not charged with anything, and I can’t think of a scenario where conventional police powers wold not suffice. That said, I’m not a police officer and I have no idea of the adequacy or otherwise of the current powers of the police.
I think though that much of the response to the draft laws has been pretty hyperbolic and exaggerated.
You’re wrong, EP. This just proves my point.
(ii) possesses a thing that is connected with the preparation for, or the engagement of a person in, a terrorist act; or
As many lawyers have pointed out, a “thing” is not defined in the Act. It could be a journalist’s interview notes, for example. It could be a lawyer’s brief.
This is not speculation, but has already, under the existing laws, been abused, as the SBS journalist found out, and as Melbourne’s radio producer Hugh Tolhurst found out when the Feds raided 3CR after Jack Thomas’s lawyer, Rob Stary, spoke on the program, saying nothing that wasn’t already on public (court) record. There could be more cases like these, but we can’t know, because the law prohibits victims speaking about it for 2 years.
“Reasonable grounds”?
Reasonable grounds led to the detention of Jack, shackled down in isolation for 5 months in Barwon prison. Reasonable grounds led to former Chaplain James Yee being held in Guantanamo Bay for years before he was pardonned with an honourable discharge.
We need due process in law, not a police state. I don’t trust the police to have ‘reasonable grounds’ when there are so many examples of unreasonable grounds and human rights abuses under these laws.
I don’t see any reason to think that the examples you cite are abuses. You side with those people and therefore believe that they were unjustly treated, but my opwn opinion is different.
The existing laws have not been abused as far as I know, and I have no reason to believe that the new laws will be abused either.
Hmmm.. I posted this at Surfdom but I feel it may be pertinent here too:
“Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. For patriotism is indeed a double- edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and patriotism, will offer up all of their rights to the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Julius Caesar.” (Julius Caesar)
Some ‘anarchist’ you are! Tom Paine would be rolling so fast in his grave you could wire him up to some magnets and use him as an alternative fossil fuel.
I side with these people and therefore I’m wrong?
Three points: I didn’t ‘side’ with James Yee—the US govt has admitted he was wrongfully detained on the very grounds you applaud.
Secondly, Jack Thomas has not even been accused of any violent crime, let alone a terrorist act. The charges against him basically amount to overhearing conversations while he was in Afghanistan, and NOT, like David Hicks, in any military capacity. In other words, guilt by association. Does this justify him being shackled in isolation for 5 months in Barwon prison?
Thirdly, you don’t even address the other abuses of the laws already in place: intimidation of journalists for simply having “a thing” “connected with” what could be “reasonably” thought to be associated with a “terrorist activity”.
Another thing, you most evil of pundits. What about the Scott Parkins case?
That extract is deeply troubling EP – where’s the hearing/ due process/ procedural fairness/ review mechanism/ supervision/ independece/ protection against corruptiopn or victimisation? A lone AFP officer makes a call (then I gather, a magistrate who *isnt permitted* to fully review the facts (!!) signs off) and bang – 14 days incommunicado in detention.
Aside from the fact that they wont be shot, that’s sailing close to Chile under Pinochet.
Well said.
I’m not up to speed on James Yee, so I’ll take your word on it — but that didn’t happen in Australia.
Jack Thomas was involved with al-Qaeda and that’s enough for me. You don’t sign on with the enemy when your country is at war and expect to get away with it.
As for the journalists, I’m not aware of any rights being violated. Just being journalists doesn’t give them special rights that other people don’t have. As far as I’m concerned, SBS journalists are pretty much aiding the enemy anyway.
Scott Parkin has no right to be in Australia. As a foreigner, he gets to stay only as long as the government allows him to, and the Government withdrew its permission. I guess he shouldn’t have conspired to break the law, eh?
This isn’t some silly game of political theory, it’s a deadly struggle that threatens our society. These laws are a very minimal response — if the terrorists ever manage to acquire a nuclear weapon, you’ll see some real action.
Unless I misread the draft legislation completely – which is quite possible – the AFP officer has to first get the consent of the Attorney-General and only then can the court issue a control order. In both cases the judical officer has a legal obligation to be satisfied as to the grounds of the request. And it’s 48 hours, isn’t it, not 14 days?
So what was Thomas actually charged with, weathergirl, conspiracy or similar?
EP, EP.
No, Jack Thomas is ACCUSED of being involved with al-Q’aeda (where’s the presumption of innocence, here?), and if you’d been following the case you’d know that this accusation is based solely on a statement extracted (required: allegedly) under torture from Jack in a Pakistani military prison where Jack was held without charge for 5 months. This is what has outraged even conservative lawyers. There is simply no other evidence to suggest that Jack, overseas with his family during the events of 9/11, associated with al-Q’aeda. But “that’s enough for me,” you say.
“This isn’t some silly game of political theory”–no, it’s not. And when people you care about are being dragged through the courts, traumatised and stigmatised, it becomes very real. When journalists covering the possible abuses of power in terror cases become abused by that power themselves, it’s real.
As for the SBS journo “pretty much aiding the enemy anyway”–where’s your evidence? What kind of claim is this?
Where’s the evidence that Scott Parkin ever “conspired to break the law”?
Rob, you can read about what Jack has been charged with on:
http://www.Justice4Jack.com
The site has many newspaper articles dealing with the case.
Hmm.
Legitimate charges upheld by the committal court, unsound ones struck out.
That sounds like proper legal process to me, weathergirl.
Well, consider this. Before I address the “proper legal process” question, let me elaborate on the charges.
1. The government alleges Jack was ‘receiving funds’ in the form of an airline ticket out of Pakistan and to his home and family in Australia. There is no evidence to support this except for Jack’s own statements allegedly extracted etc etc (see earlier post). Then, the government decided Jack could be released from the Pakistani prison (where he wasn’t charged) and was welcome fly home to Australia. (If he was a terrorist threat, why do this?) It was A YEAR AND A HALF before the feds decided to lay that charge on him, after a peaceful life back in Australia (albeit one in which he was treated for torture, under Australia’s foremost torture psychologist, Professor Patrick McGorry, who said in court he was in no doubt Jack had been subjected to torture). The federal government has admitted to finding no new evidence to incriminate Jack.
2. Providing support. Much of this, according to Jack’s campaign team, amounts to accusations of overhearing conversations by suspected Al-Q’aida networks. But hey, if you travel to Afghanistan in early 2001 (and remember that wasn’t a crime before 9/11), could you really walk down the street without doing this? In any case, this has been dismissed by the magistrate.
3. Possessing a false passport. The government alleges that Jack has travelled to Pakistan TWICE, not once, as his passport states. So he’s accused of altering his passport. Again, this accusation is said to be based etc etc
So you can see that the charges don’t really amount to anything serious?
Okay, on the point of proper legal process. It depends on your interpretation of ‘proper’. This is a landmark case in Australian criminal law. Unlike criminal cases, under the terror laws Jack has to prove ‘exceptional circumstances’ to have bail or get out of court hearings. Legal, sure. Proper? Not in my books.
Another thing. (Why can’t I stop at one posting?)
Refer to point 1 above. Why did the govt, after allowing Jack to live peacefully for a year and a half in Australia, suddenly charge him? There’s a theory about this. The case against Mamdouh Habib was collapsing at the time. The case against David Hicks was looking difficult (there were no laws in Australia prohibiting what Hicks had done). So, it’s alleged that the govt needed to keep the terror campaign alive, that it needed a political scapegoat. Who had been in Pakistan at the time of 9/11? Oh, Jack Thomas. So let’s send a team of police dogs, and feds with machine guns, and a camera crew in tow, around to Thomas’s house in the early hours of a November morning. (Funny that they summoned the cameras at his arrest but have prohibited the media to witness the court trial). Jack’s lawyers allege this was illegal, and are taking action.
Not really. The magistrate obviously ran a tough ruler across the charges, and found some that should go to trial, and others that should not. That was her job. Seems she did it well.
For the rest, we’ll have to see what happens in court and what the jury decides. If the case fails for lack of evidence, or because of contaminated evidence, it fails. Prosecution gets egg on its face, prisoner walks free. It happens all the time. In my book, that is proper legal process, sorry.
On the basis of what you’ve posted, weathergirl, and what’s on the site you linked to, I’d say the Commonwealth was entitled to lay the charges. If they were frivolous or without substance the magistrate would have struck them out like the others. Whether they are proved beyond reasonable doubt in the course of the trial is entirely a matter for the jury.
And the conspiracy theory seems a bit far-fetched to me. After all, the Government already has one terrorist conviction – that of Jack Roche – under its belt. It doesn’t need to invent terrorists, and it would fall flat on its face in the courts if it tried to.
Is it? When the govt (ab)uses the law for political ends, when it attempts to present evidence allegedly extracted under torture, is that proper legal process? It’s believed that the case will be thrown out of court, but Jack’s family has not the financial clout that the govt has with our taxpayer dollars. It has dragged him through a number of bail hearings, and cost his family so far in excess of $200K. It has taken its toll psychologically (Prof Patrick McGorry described Thomas’s treatment, being locked up in isolation in Melbourne’s Barwon Prison, as “secondary torture”, and he was only allowed a family visit once a month. All this, for allegedly altering a passport etc). How do the charges against Thomas possibly amount to a security threat to Australia, and justify this treatment? You call the treatment “running a tough ruler”… the “exceptional circumstances” clause makes it all but impossible to achieve a fair outcome. Thomas had to prove his mental health was deteriorating by being held in shackles in isolation, and when not in isolation being made to rub shoulders with the likes of Melbourne’s Gangland killers. This is a young man charged with no violent crime.
Remember the Timothy Anderson case, Rob? The man who spent 8 years in prison on trumped-up charges (alleged by ASIO to be behind the Hilton bombings). He was then ‘pardoned’.
The Thomas case may be proper legal process in view of the terrorism laws–but that just shows how draconian these laws are. And they’re about to get worse.
Let’s put this in perspective. Compare and contrast the as-yet unproved charges against Thomas (altering his passport etc) with the sinking of all those people on the SeivX. Or think of the increased threat of terrorism we face since we became part of the coalition of the willing.
But all these evidentiary questions are ones of the jury. I happen to believe that our judicial system is extremely fair to any accused, and they get the benefit of any skerrick of doubt in the prosecution’s case.
If the Government indeed intends to adduce evidence obtained by torture I think they would find it very, very difficult to have it admitted in court, let alone accepted as truth by the jury. If Peter Kemp or Ken Parish are lurking nearby they would have a view on that.
The al-Qaeda manual instructs terrorists to allege torture whenever they are captured. Consequently, Jihad Jack’s allegations of torture are questionable at best.
Rob, I don’t think there’s a jury in this special case–see the Thomas website. I could be wrong. As for it being admitted in court–what about the Tim Anderson case. That was admitted in court. People think these abuses only happen in history–they can’t possibly be happening today.
Evil Pundit, I just checked and you’re right about the IR figures being under $40 mil. So I happily concede that point. But where on earth did you get the al-Qaeda manual? This marks you as a terror suspect. I’ll be reporting you to the authorities immediately, and you can have as fair a trial as Jack Thomas. While you’re kept in isolation and shackles for 5 months, you can amuse yourself –Bolt style– by parrotting the ‘Jihad Jack’ slander. But be assured that Jack Thomas has never called himself that, and neither has anyone but the tabloid media, which you’re obviously acquainted with. As for his claims of torture that you find “questionable at best”–a court found them perfectly plausible, which is why he was allowed out on bail. (Do you trust the legal process now?) Australia’s foremost expert on torture, Dr Patrick McGorry, was in no doubt, but since you find it “questionable at best” I’m rest assured it must be nonsense.
You must feel very relaxed and comfortable, evil pundit. It must be a challenge tirelessly arguing for the status quo
Well, if there’s not a jury, there most definitely should be and if there’s not I’ll happily to join you at the barricades. But the magistrate’s comments as reported seem to indicate that these matters will be for trial by jury.
I don’t know enough about the Anderson/Ananda Marga case to comment.
The al Qa’ida training manual has been extensively reported in the media.
Also, weathergirl, do you really think Thomas would admit to being a terrorist any more than most criminals admit they are thieves, rapists, murderers, frauds, etc.? It’s the task of the courts to find out. It’s what they are there for.
True, Rob (your last point). My beef isn’t with the legal system, but the laws this government has put into place. Did you see that item on the news tonight about many senior people in the judiciary saying they will refuse to enact these laws?
Just checked: it will be before a Supreme Court Jury, but closed to the media.
“You donÄôt sign on with the enemy when your country is at war and expect to get away with it.”
Just for the record, Evil Pundit, Jack never ‘signed on’ with any enemy, and his country wasn’t at war. This was pre-9/11, remember. The world was, as they claim, “a different place”. Travelling to Afghanistan and Pakistan wasn’t a crime.
‘Closed to the media’ indicates the prosecution will be tendering national security classified information. Interesting. That would be the reason why the Government has been insisting the defence briefs undergo a security clearance.
Yes. Strange that there were no national security concerns when the federal police issued a media release to Channel 7 so they could stage a trial by media during Thomas’s arrest.
Hey, weathergirl, we seem to be the only ones playing at the moment and I think we’ve done poor Jack to death. Why don’t we talk about our favourite films?
Children of the Revolution
Il Postino
Manhattan Murder Mystery
High Hopes (anything by Mike Leigh)
The Remains of the Day
Aliens
You?
Good, good, especially Manhattan Murder Mystery. Isn’t Woody Allen the best?
La jetee
Les Enfants du Paradis
Bladerunner
I Walked With a Zombie (and the rest of Val Lewton’s ouevre – just got the whole set on DVD – woohoo!)
Liquid Sky
Aliens
Never seen a Val Lewton film… never seen a zombie film, to be honest. And I don’t much like French films… a bit racist, n’est-ce pas? No, there have been some good ones, but on the whole I find them vapid. Don’t know Liquid Sky… I’ve got to get out more… spent today blogging in bed as I’m down with the WEIRDEST virus… So I’m shouting on this site. Trying to preach to the unconvertable.
ooooh—1942, Cat People? Is that Val Lewton?
Yes, that’s one of them (‘Cat People’, I mean). Superb film.
Liquid Sky is a scream. It was made by Russian expatriates in New York in the early 80′s and they were obviously intoxicated (quite literally) with New York punk culture. It involves heroin, other drugs, androgyny, aliens, killing people by having sex with them, funky music, the whole fab bit.
We all have problems with the ‘unconvertables’. Don’t worry about it.
I’ve not seen ‘Children of the Reolution’. I’m a big fan of Judy Davis, but not at all a fan of Joe Stalin. This could make the film problematic for me.
Nah, it’s actually a film that all political stripes can enjoy. Takes the piss out of everyone.
Rob, you would *love* Children of the Revolution. Seriously.
Three words. Rachel. Griffiths. Boobs.
And cufflinks.
Aw, geez, I mean handcuffs.
(Yeah, how sexy are cufflinks?)
Pretty damn sexy, weathergirl!
Somebody gave me cufflinks once. Whatever!
Incidentally, Im 37, and have never owned a suit. At any point.
In fact, my sum total suit experience = three x one-night hires, for weddings/ formals.
I therefore wear a suit, on average, once every 12.33 years.
Anybody wanna *step to me* with a higher average? Come on, punkz!
Kim, how’ve ya been? We’ve missed you.
Go weathergirl!
Homer said a couple of days ago:
Yes, probably. At times I couldn’t get into the comments threads at all. Robert has been investigating, but I think it’s cured itself for the time being.
Thanks, Brian. I’m in LA which explains my only intermittent online presence. I’m good, thanks! Hope you are too!
Yes, I too was wondering where the High Bloggess of LP was.
LA! Enjoy Kim!
Cops in cars, electric bars…
Hey, what are all you others doing here? I was talking to weathergirl.
Guy wakes from a nap, and the hotel lobby is full of interlopers, talking about other stuff.
That’s what you get as your reward when you fall asleep in the middle of a conversation with someone, Rob!
So long, weathergirl. Meet you in the next hunger period.
Off to watch some episode of ‘Kolchak: The Night Stalker’. Classic TV.
“…have never owned a suit. At any point.”
Then you’re really missing out on something. Try it some time when you’ve got a spare 1500-2000 bucks to treat yourself to a nice bespoke bag of fruit. In the hands of a good tailor the whole process becomes a wonderful piece of charming, archaic yet still potent secret men’s business. It’s worth doing at least once for the whole ritual of the thing.
And a great hand-tailored suit will last for a good 10-15 years at least (that’s less than $3 a week – always provided of course you don’t accidentally set fire to your crotch while lunging in to light a ciggie for Laura San Giacomo at an FDC bunfight). And such a suit will never date and it will shave a decade and a couple of stone off your full length reflection while adding 15 points to your IQ.
If either of us were gentlemen LE, then I’d introduce you to my tailor.
Lefty E – What Nabs bespoke!
What Nabakov said. A good suit is a thing of joy. You’d be surprised, Lefty E. I know I was.
Kolckak not so classic, Rob? Or have you got a laptop to type in front of the teev? Anyway, it’s almost 8am here in LA so I’d best go get some brekky! Night all from Lalaland!
$1500? Thats a lotta latte Nabs. You think Im made of cake?
Anyway, my daughter would just spew on it.
The fitting does sound full of enjoyable old world mores, I grant you.
I’m with LE. Again!
C.L.
Get
A
Suit!
weathergirl has a gravatar now. ‘xellent.
Now Mark, that last quip reminds me of driving my Morris 1100 circa 1988, with a certain Doug, yelling at businessmen on the street “GET A HOBBY!”
And CL, we really must stop meeting like this.
Gravatar rools. I was going to put a pic of meself, but that seemed way uncool. Can’t seem to make yours out, Rob–is it Alfred Hitchcock? Is it a mad scientitst?
Now, back on to the issue at hand, here’s an article from this morning’s Age which exemplifies precisely why terror laws shouldn’t be toughened (take note, Evil Pundit. You haven’t addressed any of my questions in this thread):
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/raided-and-humiliated/2005/10/27/1130400306674.html
So authorities can make mistakes. Big deal.
Should all laws should be repealed and the police be disbanded because sometimes they arrest the wrong person?
As I said before, this is not some academic theory-game. It’s about a life and death struggle between global ideologies.
“Should all laws should be repealed and the police be disbanded because sometimes they arrest the wrong person?”
Oh, sure, Evil Pundit, that’s what I’m arguing. All laws should be repealed. Police should be disbanded. Must you resort to distorting the argument like this? Is that all you can come up with?
And you still haven’t answered my questions. Particularly those about your presumption of guilt and your unfettered faith in this government to do the right thing, when there are so many examples — including the one above — of abuse under the current system.
Your argument rests at this stage on “I’m not convinced” and “That’s good enough for me.” Not the strongest case, I’d say.
My point is that mistakes happen. The fact that mistakes can happen is not sufficient reason to oppose a law that will enable us to fight our enemies more effectively.
My presumption of guilt is simply the mirror image of your own presumption of innocence, and it is held for the same reason — personal political beliefs.
My faith in the government is not unlimited, but it is far, far greater than my faith in the left-wing opposition and the Islamists they seek to shield.
Laws should be designed to prevent these kinds of “mistakes” (that happen so often) from occuring, rather than encouraging them. With no proper legal process, these are just going to continue. Had there been due process, this wouldn’t have happened. Would you feel the same way if it happened to your family?
Where is the evidence that these laws will help us “fight our enemies more effectively” any more than the current (draconian) ones do?
Your presumption of guilt goes against the very foundations of our system of justice. Are you saying people should be presumed guilty before innocent?
(Say, do you still think Lindy Chamberlain did it?)
Had there been due process, this wouldnÄôt have happened.
But there was due process, and it still happened.
Where is the evidence that these laws will help us “fight our enemies more effectively” any more than the current (draconian) ones do?
Where is the evidence that they won’t?
This is not an issue about which there can be much in the way of empirical evidence — all the futures are hypothetical. You can’t compare one hypothetical future with another and call it “evidence”.
The only thing we can know is that police will have greater powers to act against terrorists. I think that will enhance their ability to prevent terrorist attacks.
Your presumption of guilt goes against the very foundations of our system of justice. Are you saying people should be presumed guilty before innocent?
In some cases they should. If a police officer overhears two people planning to plant a bomb, he should be able to get a restraining order on them without going through a full jury trial.
This principle already applies in the case of Apprehended Violence Orders, where there is no presumption of innocence.
Nothing in this legislation is fundamentally new to our legal system.
No, there wasn’t due process. There was no right to legal representation on the parts of the victims, for a start. (As in the Jack Thomas case. Did you know he asked for a lawyer during interrogation, and was denied one?)
Look, I undersand your fear of a terrorist threat, but as countless senior people in the judiciary are arguing, the existing laws are already more than adequate. We should have better intelligence-gathering, not erosion of basic rights. And, of course, we shouldn’t have made ourselves a target by engaging in an illegal war… but there’s another argument. (But BTW, have you read that recent book by terrorism expert Robert Pape? Most of the world’s terrorists are not, in fact, Muslims, as you presume. And most are politically motivated, not religiously motivated.)
weathergirl, my gravatar is trhe immortal (d. 1954) Wilhelm Furtwangler, the greatest conductor in the history of recorded music.
We are getting better intelligence, in addition to better laws.
The Iraq war wasn’t illegal and we were a terrorist target long before the invasion of Iraq.
Robert Pape is wrong.
See, we will never agree.
Weathergirl writes:
EP replies:
Well, that’s conclusive.
You could also look at conservative British historian (who supports US empire) Niall Ferguson’s latest book Colossus where he demonstrates that the number of terrorist incidents has been falling consistently since the mid 80s. In most cases, as Ferguson correctly argues, this has come through political and social engagement with the political causes of terror – and he also argues (correctly again) that Al Qaeda has a political and territorial objective which is only dressed up in religious clothing.
But, hey, as EP knows, good RWDBs never let facts get in the way of “tough minded” and “pragmatic” laws.
It’d be really nice if one right winger might actually defend the rights of citizens rather than overwhelming and largely unaccountable state power.
Incidentally, interesting article in the Fin today by Laura Tingle about the ructions in Caucus over the ALP’s position now that they have to take a position on substance rather than process. If the Beazer was PM, he’d probably be all in favour of these laws.
Evil pundit, I admire your moral certitude, and the way you disprove an argument from an expert just by saying it’s wrong. Terrific device.
Rob, I should’ve guessed, of course
I think this thread has run it’s course, has it not? I’m hopping it to another.
No amount of legislation can rule out the possbility of human error. In the case of errors by the police, the important thing is to have avenues of redress. In the case of the 2001 raids, the raidees complained to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security who, if I recall correctly, ordered compensation be paid to them.
Now one of them wants to sue for damages. Fine. That’s due process too. As is appropriate, the courts will decide.
Okay, I said I was leaving, but did you know, Rob, that Mamdouh Habib, even though released, has no avenue for legal recourse? And neither will Jack Thomas. According to his lawyer, Rob Stary, he cannot claim compensation for his (so far) $200K legal battle even if found innocent, or even if the matter is thrown out of court.
Legislation can certainly minimise human error. And so can the culture of politics (witness the degree of human error in the immigration dept under Howard).
Can’t Habib sue the US government? I would if I were him.
I’m outa here too. I’ve run out of cigarettes.
I do defend the rights of citizens — against real threats, like the unaccountable sexism of the Family Court, the vindictive extortion of the Child Support Agency, the racist censorship of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
These oppressive bureaucracies do far more harm to innocent Australians in one week of deliberate operation than the police and ASIO could achieve in a year of errors.
Protecting the rights of Australians is important to me. Protecting terrorists, their enablers and sympathisers is not on my list of priorities.
Turing Test!
Many claiming “due process” leave out the provisions in the proposed laws that prevent redress for error. If detained, you would be forever procluded from speaking of it publically, for example. Due process, habeus corpus, and so forth, all effectively rescinded, but that’s all right, so long as Evil Pundit doesn’t have to pay child support or hire one o’ dem coloureds.
EP, You really are a very neat ideological package, aren’t you? Before mouthing off about Muslims, whom you equate with terrorists, would you like to address what Mark wrote?
“You could also look at conservative British historian (who supports US empire) Niall FergusonÄôs latest book Colossus where he demonstrates that the number of terrorist incidents has been falling consistently since the mid 80s. In most cases, as Ferguson correctly argues, this has come through political and social engagement with the political causes of terror – and he also argues (correctly again) that Al Qaeda has a political and territorial objective which is only dressed up in religious clothing.?
It seems hard to separate the religious motivation from the territorial in some cases. Hamas, for example, seeks to establish an Islamic theocracy in Gaza, the West Bank and that sliver of Eastern Meditteranean seaboard currently known as Israel. So are its suicide bombers motivated by resistance to the Israeli occupation, or religiion? Tough one.
As for our own region, Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual head of Jemaah Islamiyah, said in a recent interview that terrorism against the west would not stop until the west consented to be ruled by Islam. (Lost the link, sorry.) That’s really saying the restituted caliphate must govern the world. Again, it’s hard to separate the religious from the territorial ambition.
In the case of the ETA or the IRA the dilemma does not arise (AFAICS).
Here’s the story on Bashir.
I don’t see what relevance Niall Ferguson’s book has to the proposed anti-terrorism laws. We are not concerned with the history of terrorism, but the best means of stopping terrorist attacks in the future.
In the case of Islamic terrorism, this boils down to either turning our country into a theocracy under Sharia Law, or fighting terrorism.
An important component of fighting terrorism is having appropriate domestic laws that can be used to hinder terrorists from carrying out their schemes. This is why the government’s proposed laws should be enacted, perhaps with appropriate amendments to minimise abuse.
As for human rights in Australia, the organisations I have mentioned pose far more threat than do the proposed laws. If you sincerely want to improve human rights in Australia, you should begin by dismantling the Family Court, the HREOC, and similar organisations.
Sure, of course the government should have “laws that can be used to hinder terrorists”: and they have them. There are powers of arrest, powers of detention, powers of surveillance. . . . But none of them go as far as what’s now being proposed: laws that preclude due process, that permit secret orders and secret courts, that dissolve the attorney-client privilege or any provision against self-incrimination. These are serious matters too easily glossed over in Australia, where the lack of a constitutional deliniation of fundamental rights leaves open potential abuses precluded in the American system, with its Bill of Rights. Before such laws are put in place and put to the test, it would be worthwhile making sure such groundwork was established to ensure the liberty leaders such as we have now seem to do no more than pay lip service to. Regardless of whether you’ve got a problem meeting your child support payments or not.
You seem to be hung up on child support payments for some reason, Greg.
Just cough up the money and stop whingeing about it.
Either you are being ironic, EP, or you’ve joined the Swedish feminist sperm theft conspiracy?
“Evil Pundit”, whoever he is, is just one of those anti-intellectual thugs who thinks the courts are after his children, although I doubt he has any – or maybe he’s got a problem with his parents’ divorce. Therapy is clearly indicated in any case.
You’re obsessed, Greg.
How about returning to the topic at hand, which is the proposed sedition laws that won’t imprison John Pilger, regardless of how much he deserves it?
I generally agree with EP on national security and cultural identity issues. But in the case of the present anti-terrorist laws I feel that, alas, we must part company.
The anti-terror laws are aimed at constraining some of the more hot-headed members of the Muslim community. This has to happen somehow if we are not going to have a repeat of Londonistan down the track.
This is certainly good politics for Howard, since Islamic sectarians are not popular with mainstream Australians. It is not necessarily the best policy since it is too coarse-grained a weapon to use against terrorist cells.
Legislative action that relaxes the notion of sedition is not the best means to achieve this good end. The whole nation state should not be induced into surrendering our ancient rights and liberties to less accountable executive, unless a full-scale terrorist emergency is at hand.
The creation of sectarian ethnic enclaves was a product of bad social policy – multicultural segregation. So it should be fixed by good social policy – national integration. Citizenship risks should be identified and rectified by conservative social workers not police statesmen.
Conservatives should use this occasion to promote a policy of Muslim integration into the Australian national community. This would kill two birds with one stone, as it would cool down the Islamist hot-heads and take down the stupid and vicious policy of multicultural selection and settlement.
I would agree with EP that any one who gives “aid and comfort to Her Majesty’s enemies” during war time deserves social ostracism, if not legal sanction. It is no excuse to say that this is “free speech”. Yelling “fire” in a crowded cinema is free speech but should be banned.
AndrewBolt, as usual, brings his overly muscular brand of conservatism to the debate:
But in that case, Howard’s laws are nurgatory.
Laws against martial vilification are certainly an interesting idea. But I think soldiers are big and strong enough to look after themselves without having the nanny state cluck over every outrageous sling and arrow that wings its way towards them.
I agree with Evil to the extent that the anti-vilification laws no win force in Victoria are far more dangerous and anti-democratic than this proposed legislation of Howard’s.
There are some aspects of the Bill which are objectionable or unclear. The pressure should be on the Government not to abandon the Bill but to allow enough time for detailed debate and to be open to amendments.
Jack the creation of sectarian enclaves should not be a problem, eg look at the greek community, jewish, catholics – they all run their own schools and community centres. You get Italian clubs, Croatian clubs, on it goes.
Its the advocating of defiance of Australian law (by Muslims) that is a problem; the attitude to rape is one of them. Muslims have violently demonstrated their rejection of western values and people have a right to be protected from these actions. The ball is in the muslim’s court, we have nothing to be ashamed of.
It was reported yesterday that the Government has produced a modified version of the Bill that addresses some of its more contentious aspects. So far, this one hasn’t appeared on the Web.
As for the sedition sections, the main changes are that penalties have been increased and the range of offences increased to include supporting enemies and stirring up racial or religious violence in the community (the lefties are strangely silent about that bit).
While I’m sure our soldiers can handle a few nasty words, that isn’t the point of the legislation. It’s there to criminalise the recruitment or encouragement of local fanatics to fight Australians here or overseas.
rog says: October 29th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
These were European, rather than Asian ethnics. Which obviously takes one of the sharper edges off social conflict.
Moreover their sectarianism was Christian, rather than Muslim. This removes another edge off the potential for social conflict.
The biggest sectarian ethnic conflict in Australian history was the Anglo Proetestant – Celtic Catholic divide. This was between Caucasians Chrisians. But it was solved by Whitlam and dissolved by modernization.
Nationalism is the best solvent for internnecine sectarian differences.
Asians have been in Australia since year dot and they were not necessarily Christian.
Muslims are violently opposed to non-muslims (whether they express that is their perogative) and non-muslims are not being unreasonable by feeling threatened by their presence.
The Iranian President has expressed his wish for the complete removal (“wiped off the map”) of a non-muslim state and the muslim world remains mute on the matter.
It’s invigorating to see Jack battling so hard for the side for rationality. And his essay 6 posts above really nails some key issues too.
To paraphrase Mark B in his absence, ‘what about existing laws does not work?” The idea of constantly creating media stunts over “getting tough on terrorism” is a distraction, and in its present form, could serve to stir up the hornet’s nest further.
Jack advocates strategies that may circumvent terrorist action – taking a long view of the problem. There are posters here who claim to know what the entire muslim communiity advocates – they are clearer more studied in the topic than I. But at base, they are human beings, and they share a need to survive & prosper with me & mine. There are radical fringes, as there are in all societies. And those fringes need to be dealt with.
But the essence of my countries’ legislature does not need to be tinkered with for short term political gain. Better, along the lines that Jack suggests, to develop strategies to alter the playing field, and starve the fanaticism.
Thats interesting Rog – know any Muslims?
I know quite a few, mostly Iraqi refugees, but also some Syrians and one Tunisian.
Not one of them is “violently” opposed to anything, let alone non-Muslims.
Take a look around dude, embrace life before it passes by. Sitting around hating imaginary phantoms is a waste of time.
“The man chosen to head the new Fair Pay Commission says he hopes the will of God will guide minimum wage deliberations by the commission.”
Hmmm… well, I hope Santa brings me something nice too, but I ain’t pinning key social policy outcomes on it.
Lefty Elitist says: October 30th, 2005 at 1:13 am
Take a look around dude, embrace life before it passes by. Sitting around hating imaginary phantoms is a waste of time.
The equivalent of waving ones arms in the direction of ones mates in the local pub is not what I would call a representative sample, or an example of effective undercover police work. Most violent people, Muslim or not, are unlikely to advertise the fact to their associates who publish on the internet.
Sectarian terrorists are not “imaginary phantoms”. They are real enough (remember WTC, Bali, London?) and the government is right to take firm measures to curtail their activities. They are not so threatening at the moment as to justify draconian laws chilling free speech.
It would be nice if the liberal Wets were ideologically consistent on the issue of free speech ie acted to to protect the free speech of all diverse points of view, including nativist racists and ethnic sectarians. But it appears that, for the politically correct, freedom is divisible.
Lefty Elitist says: October 30th, 2005 at 1:13 am
Take a look around dude, embrace life before it passes by. Sitting around hating imaginary phantoms is a waste of time.
The equivalent of waving ones arms in the direction of ones mates in the local pub is not what I would call a representative sample, or an example of effective undercover police work. Most violent people, Muslim or not, are unlikely to advertise the fact to their associates who publish on the internet.
Sectarian terrorists are not “imaginary phantoms”. They are real enough (remember WTC, Bali, London?) and the government is right to take firm measures to curtail their activities. They are not so threatening at the moment as to justify draconian laws chilling free speech.
It would be nice if the Wets were ideologically consistent on the issue of free speech ie acted to to protect the free speech of all diverse points of view, including nativist racists and ethnic sectarians. But it appears that, for the politically correct, freedom is divisible.
Why do lefties continue to tolerate the intolerant? We need protection from those who want to destroy us – the nuclear armed Iran’s declaration that they want to see Israel wiped of the map should sound a warning bell to all in the “peace movement.”
Should the situation warrant it Israel will not hesitate in a pre-emptive strike against Iran and the world needs to stand united behind Israel.
It won’t though, rog.
Im suggesting many of your sweeping statements dont bear up to scrutiny. See above “Muslims are violently opposed…” for an example of nonsensical hysterics that would shame my Grandma. Just factually incorrect. ASIO is apprently concerned about 80 odd people. There’s a Muslim population here of some 200,000. That’s 0.0004% of the population “of concern” to those who claim to be in the know.
Its hardly any suprise then, that my Muslim acquaintances are representatively part of non-violent, zero concern to authorties uber-majority of 99.9996%, is it?
Try to keep it real guys. You’re sounding like headless chooks.
Lefty Elitist says: October 30th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Its a little hard to be Dr Pangloss after the events of the past few years. But Lefty Elitist seems to be giving it his best shot.
No one is suggesting a reintroduction of the Spanish Inquisition. But the government is still right to advise people to be alert, if not alarmed.
What Lefty Elitist does not get is that social “force amplifiers” mean that small numbers can have a big effect. One grain of cyanide can kill a large fit man, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch etc.
I dont know how to describe the mathematics of this relationship (Power law distribution, Pareto’s law?). But the facts are there for all to see in other nations that have let this problem get away from them.
Its the reason why the (jihadist) minority of the (Suuni) minority has been able to thwart the superpowered US military’s attempt to bring a constitutional state to Iraq. Where sectarian terrorism is concerned, one counts balls, not heads.
Constraining Islamists will help Islamic people the most. The tiny minority of Islamist sectarian militants have always tended to victimize the vast majority of Islamic secular moderates. This has either been through indiscriminate bombing, pour encourage l’autres execution of collaborators or through deliberate provocation of nativist reactions/authority reprisals.
Once the rot starts its very hard to stop eg Londonistan. So an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (One has to talk in proverbs nowadays because Wets have forgotten the common sense wisdom that every schoolboy used to know.)
The “small ‘l’ liberal” Wets need to start taking the relationship between cultural identity and national security seriously. The Dovish Wets are mostly right about national security (obey international law, use police rather than soldiers to sort out terrorists,).
But for almost a generation they have have been talking abolute rubbish about managing the influx of ethnic cultural identities. Certain chickens are now coming home to roost. As someone who has spent a bit of time in Western areas of Sydney I know of what I speak.
You would think that the recent series of electoral disasters might make them re-think their stance. But the Wets Death Wish seems to apply to their own political party’s as well as foundational civilization.
Jack, pleased to see your “force amplifier” point, as it acknowledges the reality of the numbers we’re dealing with. Now I feel like Im talking with people in touch with the reality of the problem we face. Not so sure about some others here.
Beleive me, I can see the risks of a small, hardcore group doing great damage. Not least to the rest of their own, law-abiding and peacable community.
Two points
- Alienating a whole community, misrecognising them as ‘suspects’ through racial profiling is a force amplifier that concerns me. It creates more problems of social alienation – for little policing benefit.
- and, as you know by now, I dont see the case to sacrifice our civil liberties to diligently police those of concern. Im yet to hear a real argument here. Intelligence gatehring, polciing and charging them with criminal offences will do me fine, thanks.
Nobody said anything about alienating a whole community Lefty, only those who are considered a threat (eg training at an AQ camp, advocating suicide bombing, invoking Jihad etc etc.)
These people represent a threat to the civil liberties of all the community, including Muslims.
Rog – the logic is very simple. If overt surveillance and censorship is directed towards Islamic organisations and if Muslims are targetted through racial profiling, then inevitably this will have the effect of reinforcing social exclusion. Jack Strocchi gets it, as Lefty E notes.
LE isn’t very good with figures. 80 out of 200,000 is 0.04%, not 0.0004%. And it only takes one person to make a bomb.
ASIO was referring only to 80 people who were known to have trained with terrorist organisations prior to 2002. The actual number of potential terrorists is much, much larger than that.
The idea that policing terrorism will only cauise alienation and more terrorism is risible. Should we stop policing crime in case it alienates the communities from which criminals originate?
0.04%. I stand corrected.
You’re right, lets panic.
On you last point EP, let’s just clear something up: Im the one suggesting we police crime. (Under our criminal law, this includes conspiracy).
You’re supporting Howard, who is suggesting we lock people up who *havent* committed any crime, not even conspiracy.
Is there something wrong with the timestamp for comments? Recent comments are showing up as 1 year 12 months old when you move the mouse over them.
Must be something to do with the advent of that evil unQueensland Southern invention, daylight saving.
Could be the onset of daylight saving, Rob.
Shouda thought of that. We don’t got it here in the NT.
Comment in a vox pops in the Courier-Mail the other day from a 69 year old woman:
Fades the curtains.
Mark I dont follow any of your logic; the group that is being specifically targetted through racial profiling is us.
Nonsense, rog, are “we” a “race”? What I’m referring to is the fact that the cops (as already admitted by the Federal Police Association) will be targetting people of “middle Eastern appearance”.
Your assumption that terrorism is a war on a particular racial group (ie Anglo whites – which you presume that you and I both belong to) is the heart of the matter, really. EP, I think, implicitly shares it – as he seems to go along with the “clash of civilisations” and “enemy within” bizzo.
Its not my assumption Mark it is much recorded fact and the Iranian President is the latest to publicly confirm that fact.
How can you deny the evidence?
I’m sorry Rog, I can’t follow your logic about the Iranian President at all!