Black Dagger
12th February 2006, 03:19
http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/1632/thisisseditionjpegg0ar.th.jpg (http://img358.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thisisseditionjpegg0ar.jpg)
Click on the thumbnail for the larger image.
In case non-australians are not aware, the australian government recently passed 'sedition laws' - "Under its provisions, any person found guilty of urging others to overthrow the constitution or government or urging force or violence to be used against another community group or Australia's defence forces, like those serving in Iraq, will now face seven years imprisonment." Sedition also includes, urging 'disaffection' with the government or constitution, and now also flag burning.
"The proposed new Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 [PDF] includes an expansion of Australia's archaic 1914 sedition laws. Despite widespread calls for their abolition from community activists [PDF], and from within the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister says they are here to stay.
Advice to Peter Garrett MP from Peter Gray SC on 28 October 2005 gives a good summary of what the law will cover.
Early prosecutions for sedition included action against radical Harry Holland, jailed for two years in 1909 over his advocacy of violent revolution during the Broken Hill miners' strike. Sedition laws were last used in 1960, when Department of Native Affairs officer Brian Cooper was prosecuted for urging "the natives" of Papua New Guinea to demand independence from Australia. Mr Cooper was convicted, and committed suicide after losing his appeal.
According to the ACT Human Rights Office, the need for new sedition laws has not been established and that "our ability to criticise the activities of Australian Defence Forces in countries such as Iraq will be limited".
Proposed extensions to sedition law will shift the focus of the legislation to what people say, rather than the actual outcome of their action, a change that could radically alter the nature of legitimate public debate. The propsed laws threaten press freedom and publishers, as well as filmakers, writers and artists and satirists. The new law would would criminalise any newspaper, radio or television journalist who reported the opinions of terrorists or anyone who sympathised with their cause
The news laws further undermine freedom of speech, including the right to support national liberation movements fighting to defend their land against foreign military occupations that include Australian forces. Opposing the occupation of Iraq by foreign military forces and actually speaking in favour of the Iraqi insurgency appear to fall within the definition of the new offence.
According to Ben Saul from the University of NSW: "Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has claimed that the changes are aimed at criminalising indirect incitement of terrorism. Examples may include distasteful or reckless comments such as "Osama is a great man" "9/11 was a hoax" or "America had it coming". It may also include genuine beliefs such as "We must resist the occupiers" or Cherie Blair's view that some Palestinians believed their only way out of a hopeless existence lay in blowing themselves up."
A legal opinion obtained by ABC Media Watch suggests that statements by journalist John Pilger on ABC TV on 10 March 2004 could be prosecuted for sedition: "In our view it would be open to construe Pilger’s words as urging or inviting any person to engage in the conduct of the forceful elimination of Australian troops and their defeat in Iraq. There would certainly be an arguable case sufficient to place the evidence and surrounding circumstances before a jury."
^ i nicked the quotes bits from random sites
Click on the thumbnail for the larger image.
In case non-australians are not aware, the australian government recently passed 'sedition laws' - "Under its provisions, any person found guilty of urging others to overthrow the constitution or government or urging force or violence to be used against another community group or Australia's defence forces, like those serving in Iraq, will now face seven years imprisonment." Sedition also includes, urging 'disaffection' with the government or constitution, and now also flag burning.
"The proposed new Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 [PDF] includes an expansion of Australia's archaic 1914 sedition laws. Despite widespread calls for their abolition from community activists [PDF], and from within the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister says they are here to stay.
Advice to Peter Garrett MP from Peter Gray SC on 28 October 2005 gives a good summary of what the law will cover.
Early prosecutions for sedition included action against radical Harry Holland, jailed for two years in 1909 over his advocacy of violent revolution during the Broken Hill miners' strike. Sedition laws were last used in 1960, when Department of Native Affairs officer Brian Cooper was prosecuted for urging "the natives" of Papua New Guinea to demand independence from Australia. Mr Cooper was convicted, and committed suicide after losing his appeal.
According to the ACT Human Rights Office, the need for new sedition laws has not been established and that "our ability to criticise the activities of Australian Defence Forces in countries such as Iraq will be limited".
Proposed extensions to sedition law will shift the focus of the legislation to what people say, rather than the actual outcome of their action, a change that could radically alter the nature of legitimate public debate. The propsed laws threaten press freedom and publishers, as well as filmakers, writers and artists and satirists. The new law would would criminalise any newspaper, radio or television journalist who reported the opinions of terrorists or anyone who sympathised with their cause
The news laws further undermine freedom of speech, including the right to support national liberation movements fighting to defend their land against foreign military occupations that include Australian forces. Opposing the occupation of Iraq by foreign military forces and actually speaking in favour of the Iraqi insurgency appear to fall within the definition of the new offence.
According to Ben Saul from the University of NSW: "Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has claimed that the changes are aimed at criminalising indirect incitement of terrorism. Examples may include distasteful or reckless comments such as "Osama is a great man" "9/11 was a hoax" or "America had it coming". It may also include genuine beliefs such as "We must resist the occupiers" or Cherie Blair's view that some Palestinians believed their only way out of a hopeless existence lay in blowing themselves up."
A legal opinion obtained by ABC Media Watch suggests that statements by journalist John Pilger on ABC TV on 10 March 2004 could be prosecuted for sedition: "In our view it would be open to construe Pilger’s words as urging or inviting any person to engage in the conduct of the forceful elimination of Australian troops and their defeat in Iraq. There would certainly be an arguable case sufficient to place the evidence and surrounding circumstances before a jury."
^ i nicked the quotes bits from random sites