Howard and the Liberals once claimed that Obama was 'soft on terror'. Now the Liberals have done a back flip. Shadow Attorney-General Senator the Hon George Brandis has stated that Australia "cannot allow extraordinary measures to become ordinary". Perhaps the minority party are making a bid for votes? Regardless, it seems times are a-changing. Obama is planning on closing Guantanamo Bay, our Government will this week receive a report into the shameful handling of Dr Haneef, David Hicks has served his time and has pleaded for a stop to his control order so he can move on with his life, and as Getup reported the Opposition has joined with the Greens in a call for an independent watchdog (something they didn't do when they were in power).
This week Getup pleaded with Australians to sign its petition against our 'Anti-terrible laws': "Sedition, preventative detention, control orders, evidence obtained by torture, extraordinary rendition - as the world moves on from the Bush-Howard era of draconian anti-terror laws, Australia can't be left behind."
The Howard Government created 44 new laws that directly dealt with counter-terrorism post September 11. Our existing criminal law, which covers criminal activity such as murder, violence and the destrictuion of property, was deemed insufficient by the Howard Government in dealing with terrorism. This led me to consider the use of domestic law for an international issue. If our domestic criminal law wasn't/isn't apt in dealing with the supposed 'global enemy insurgency' then why would we create new domestic laws? How would they be effective in dealing with this international problem? Well the answer is that they haven't been effective and won't be. International law was disregarded by Bush and Howard as an effective tool, but I don't think it should be ignored as a valid option in dealing with global issues in general. Why shouldn't the world leaders get together and create international laws, breaches of which are dealt with by the already existing international courts? Excuse me for being optimistic, but Obama's 'yes we can' speech has given me hope.
The most alarming aspect of the current counter-terrorism laws has been the expansion of the powers of ASIO. These new powers allow for the abandonment of three fundamental principles of the rule of law: they remove the right to silence, habeas corpus (the right to a fair trial) and they reverse the onus of proof (you are presumed guilty rather than innocent). They allow for forced confessions, undue police pressure and unfair convictions. Privacy rights have been impinged and the freedom of expression has also been hampered - by the way the laws proscribe the definitions of "seditious" and "radical" speech. The relatively low threat of a terrorist attack in Australia makes these laws all the more illogical and ill-proportionate.
To be safe, we have become willing to be less free, and this does nothing for the advancement of democracy and the way of life in Australia. Let's ensure we get our laws back in line with our democratic society and get on with life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I like the cut of your jib.
My only question for you is, do you think that International Law/Courts are in a position to monitor these issues?
I agree that control orders go beyond what is required to address the threat posed by terrorism in Australia. The fact that the assumption of innocence has been circumvented by these laws reveals their true intention as a blatant grab for power at the expense of fundamental human rights. These laws violate the rule of law and settled principles of Constitutional Law and it is strange that they are still in operation.
What I'm really interested in is your 'optimistic' view concerning the capacity of Nations to engage in International dialogue and tackle International issues, such as terrorism. Control Orders have been interpreted by the Australian Courts (well, at least by the majority) as being necessary to address an issue of 'international concern'. Do you believe that domestic Courts should be given the power to determine whether an issue is connected to a matter of 'International Concern'? Or, do you beleive that nations should act multilaterally to address these issues?
I don't think that International co-operation is currently at a stage where it could address this issue. My concerns include: a lack of an appropriate mechanism to facilitate such International discussions; Limited powers of International Courts; and the history of developing countries being marginalised in International forums, such as the GATT. Notwithstanding this, I hope I'm wrong and that you optimistic vision does materialise. Lets hope that Obama's speech is remembered not as mere inspirational rhetoric, but as a catalyst for broad political change.
Post a Comment