OP/ED: Be Afraid...Be Unnecessarily Afraid

Vague, yet broad-reaching and potentially invasive counter-terrorism bills are the latest fashion for Western governments it seems. The USA had the Patriot Act rushed through congress shortly after 9-11, with rumours of a pending "Patriot Act II" that would make the first one blush. Tony Blair's Labour government has been passing new laws that undermine civil liberties with cheerful abandon; and now, in his signature uninspired, unoriginal style, Australian PM Johnny "Weasel" Howard has come up with his own version in an attempt to keep up with the big boys. Speculation and conflicting reports regarding the actual specifics of the new laws are rife, and with a draft of the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 being deliberately and bravely leaked by Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, I took the opportunity to take a look and see if all the fuss is justified.

---

align=center>external image

Bloody brilliant. I can't wait to see who wrote this.

My favorite clause right now is that "URGE" bit. I am Guilty. I know I am Guilty.

[Jumps. Feels hand on shoulder. Looks around fearfully. Fights the constraints. Pleads tearfully, "I only love LIFE. And ideas. Knowledge. The joy of thinking. I don't mean any harm. I just want to live life. Not deny it."]

Wecomeinpeace,

you got my "way above". that's for sure!

nice one.

WATS wecomeinpeace!

Though not an Aussie, I feel your patriotic pain! With that said . . .

Welcome to our world!

The United States, Great Britain, and now Australia not so slowly and not so subtly whittling away at the given rights of the populace.

More and more it seems this is being accomplished in a bit of a rank and file order.

So let's all line up in a nice lil' single file collective* order and prepare for our weekly search and seizure routine.

Practice makes perfect don't ya know!?

</sarcasm>
* yes I mean collective . . . as in . . . where it's all headed?!

The thing that upsets me is alot of people would say that they havnt even heard of anyone being detained or arrested using the new laws in these bills in our various country's. And the scary part is I don't think we ever will....

Targest could be easily picked up on a street one day and the family simply files a missing persons report that will never be solved. I am 100% sure this happens everyday right now.

A typically great Op/Ed from WCIP. You got a WATS vote from me as well.

I haven't had the dubious privilege of reading this proposed anti-terrorism act yet but I fully intend to after reading your synopsis. I may not of been in England during the authoring and implementation of the first round of its anti-terror laws but I am here for these ones!

What are we willing to do to protect our hard won freedoms? I am definitely going to write our Premiere a letter outlining my concerns. I would definitely take part in a demonstration in Melbourne over this. Does any one know of any that are planned?

This is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it. The only clear and present danger to our way of life is coming from our own politicians. These schmucks work for us, not the other way around. They will do as they are told, not dictate to us why we have to give up our civil rights.

ENOUGH!

Here! Here!

WCIP and Subz!!

* visual emphasis by 12m8keall2c

World-Wide . . . decisions are being made . . . stances are being taken . . . without as much as a 1:? consideration.

Hell . . . not even ?:1.

?any thoughts?

Excellent article & exemplary analysis. Everyone seems to be climbing on the same anti-terrorism bandwagon with respect to leglislation already passed or being readied for passage. I'm a bit concerned at the seeming lackadaisical regard for the civil rights of the citizens of our respective countries, but I do think we are all being just a little bit paranoid--not overly so though. If we don't continue to create a little commotion now & then our governments may be emboldened to pass even more restrictive leglislation.

Thanks heaps for the encouragement, folks.

I found the Crimes Act of 1914.

The passage regarding the definition of "seditious intention" in the Anti-terrorism Bill is merely a clarification of existing legislation in the Crimes Act, whereby the definition of "seditious intention" is not included in the appropriate passage and you have to refer back and forth between sections.

Interestingly, the Crimes Act has some eyebrow-raising laws related to "sedition" in it. In addition to amusing references to Australian citizens as "Her Majesty's subjects" ( ), there's things like this:



Three years imprisonment for uttering or printing seditious words with the intention of creating a public disturbance would seem to cover some demonstrations or protests, in particular protests that are against new draconian legislation and could be termed as designed to "urge disaffection against the House of the Parliament". A rather vague definition...

So this goes back to the questions I raised earlier regarding the potential for abuse. It seems that there already exist laws in place that if the government and courts so wished it, they could, by means of interpretation of the law, outlaw a lot of activities and lock people up willy-nilly. But they haven't. So are the new laws simply a preparative measure, enabling the government and law enforcement to be ready just in case something terrible happens, and never used until they are truly needed? Is it a case of if something did happen and the government hadn't acted in advance, that we would be screaming blue murder because of their inaction, incompetence and lack of foresight? Or is this a gradual and deliberate undermining of certain tenets of our system of justice, turning the temperature of the pot up a few degrees at a time until we're cooked without even realizing? Is there a better way to prevent terrorism? Beef up the intelligence? Start advertising for ASIO recruits like MI6?

And for the conspiracy-minded, will the Australian government carry out false-flag operations in order to scare the people into submission and acceptance of the accelerated erosion of civil liberties and greater control? Is the US, UK and Oz global trio's ramping up of the anti-terror legislation part of a larger, more sinister plan? After all, putting these laws in place now would be a nice preparation for later if and when things really heat up, since anyone resisting the changes could be labelled a terrorist and locked up under a "preventative detention order". Protesters could be labelled "seditious" and have their movements restricted and tracked. In an Orwellian, life-imitating-art twist, it could eventually get to the stage where violent resistance is the only option, so one would only have two choices: be cattle, or be labelled a terrorist.

Or are we simply being too paranoid...?

[edit on 2005-10-16 by wecomeinpeace]

"Or are we simply being too paranoid...?"

No you are not being too paranoid. Not in countries where the power supposedly resides in the people and free speech should prevail.

First it's the nanny gov'ts of the libs, and now the hitlarious gov'ts of the right. Who'da figured? Not those who voted for Bush, for sure(closet nazis).

I'm beginning to think we don't need gov't, for all it's doing. Especially the taking from the poor and giving to the rich part.







[edit on 10/16/2005 by bodebliss]

Thanks for filling us in wecomeinpeace with the downunder thunder.

Looking at those laws describes a draconian utopia, and makes me wonder how anyone can think these possible mandates have an iota of commonsense in them.

Bloody overkill is too timid a term to describe these measures.

external image external image


[edit on 16-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

All governments and civilizations rise and eventually fall, our isn't the first and it won't be the last unless we obliderate the planet. Nine times out of ten they sow the seeds of their own destruction. It is an old ploy dating from at least the decades leading up to the Russian revolution to make terrorist attacks with the intention of forcing the "theratened" government to crack down and become more draconian, to make like under that government more and more difficult, and so hasten its overthrow. That is why I have always said Bush walked right into the trap Bin Laden set for him on 9/11. That is what happens when you have people who are blind to history or believe they are the exception running the show. Will the ploy work? Who knows. But the west has been reacting according to plan. Fortunately governments do fall.

Unfortunately, they generally take as many citizens as they can with them when they go. Government is the single greatest threat to both life and liberty, yet it is viewed as necessary.

This is abump.

I am doing it because this post deserves attention, IMO.

Ive started going through the draft act. Its pretty hardcore legalese

This is the first piece that set alarm bells off in my head.


This is too vague! Who defines what is "reckless". If I donate money to the Australian Red Cross, who then provide food aid to say earthquake ravaged Pakistan. The food aid makes its way to terrorists, now my donated money is aiding terrorists. I would technically be breaching this proposed law.

There are many other examples of how easily you can run foul of this proposed law. Invest in a mutal fund who invests your money in a company that has ties to terrorist groups and youre going to jail, possibly for life.

Absurdity!


If the Federal Police have information which could convince a judge to deprive an Australian citizens of their freedom, then they should arrest the citizen and put them on trial. If the AFP have evidence proving this citizen is about to carry out, or aid, a terrorist attack they can be arrested and put on trial. The same applies if they are providing or receiving terrorist training.

Control orders are circumventions of due process and have no place in a modern democratic state.

These are the requirements of Control Orders as described in the proposed Act:

What I have issue with, besides the substantial breaches of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the impact this would likely have on families where the bread-winner is the subject of a control order.

These abridgements to civil liberties would make it impossible to hold down a job. What would happen to the dependants when the subject of the control order loses their job? Would the Federal Government assist the family or compensate them for their loss of their job? Would the family receive food aid or is that not the problem of the Federal Government? Could the subject of the control order apply for unemployment benefits? Would the subject of the control order be able to disclose the reasons as to why they lost their job, and why they are unable to search for another a replacement job to their dole officer?

These questions need to be addressed by the Federal government as it has the potential to ruin the lives of entire families. This is completely unacceptable to me, and I assume many other Australians would feel the same way.

I mentioned the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the breaches in this act also pertain to the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The aspects which this act breaches are as follows:

# the right to legal recourse when their rights have been violated, even if the violator was acting in an official capacity
# the right to liberty and freedom of movement
# the right to equality before the law
# the right to presumption of innocence til proven guilty
# the right to appeal a conviction
# the right to privacy and protection of that privacy by law
# freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
# freedom of opinion and expression
# freedom of assembly and association

United Nations Agreements on Human Rights

The Australian government is also legally bound to uphold the contents of the UN's Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Australia signed the convention on 10th Dec 1985 and ratified it on 8th Aug 1989: Source. In 1993 the Australian government officially gave the UN's Office Of The High Commissioner for Human Rights the authourity to legally monitor the aforementioned Convention in Australia:


OHCHR - Committee against Torture

The UN's Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment says that a state would breach this Convention if it breaches "article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"



I would class locking some one up in their own home without access to the outside world extremely cruel. The provisions in this Control Order allow for solitary confinement in your own home for an indefinate period of time. There is no legal obligation for the State to keep them alive either. They could be allowed to starve or jailed for breaching their control order. Who writes this stuff?

I thought the following could the first piece of this act that gives invidual rights of Australians some kind of respect:


So the AFP can inform you of all this but if you dont understand it, tough luck:

Federal Policeman: Hey there cobber,
You are hereby under a federal control order
The control order starts today and will remain in force for 12 months
You may not leave your place of residence unless we say so
You cannot talk to the following people: anyone and everyone we say so
You cannot watch TV, use the internet, use your phone
You cannot inform anyone apart from your immediate family that you are safe and that your are not permitted to talk about your current cirumstances
Got it?

Subject of the control order: What the hell are you talking about?

Federal Policeman: Bye

Now you better not contradict the control order or you're going to jail.

Think your lawyer could get you out of this misunderstanding? WRONG. But hey, the Federal Government or the police NEVER make mistakes so dont worry!


That means your lawyer, if youre allowed to talk to them, is only allowed to get access to the control order holding you. They are not legally entitled to view the evidence the government/federal police are locking you up based on. So your lawyer will be an overpaid, delivery man who can only show you the dates, times, duration, and signature of those who want you locked up. They do not have a hope in hell of getting you freed if youre mistakenly placed under a control order. Whether you are someone with a similar name as a terrorist or a terrorist has stolen your identity and is implicating you in a terrorist plot via your credit card or phone details: you will never know.

Edit: Im going to continue to post my synopsis and comments in this thread as I find them. Im then going to collate my points into a letter which I will send to the Victorian Premier, as well as other politicians. I'll start an Op/Ed with the contents of my letter and include any replies I get to them in that thread.

[edit on 17/10/05 by subz]

good idea subz. maybe drafting a form letter that people could send off might be a good idea too.

It's even more absurd than that. Read on to the next subsection and it states:



So it appears that you can be imprisoned for life, simply because you didn't go to enough lengths to ensure that a recipient of any funds transacted, collected, or made available by you wasn't going to use the money to buy bombs, even if s/he never did and never intended to. Simply that fact that you didn't make sure is a crime.

"Hey, Johnno, lend us 50 bucks, will ya?"

"Sure. ...Hey, you're not gonna use this to buy some bomb-making materials, are ya?"

"... ...Nah."

"Ok, no worries then, mate. Here ya go. :"


I didn't see anything in the Bill regarding baggage being left unattended at airports.

Regarding preventative detention orders, 48 hours may seem not too harsh, especially as a preventative measure against pending terrorist acts, however once the line of detention without charge is over-stepped and the law is in place, the government only needs to then amend that time limitation by a little each time, or make the time period extendible, and suddenly we've got conviction without charge or trial. This law needs to be stopped before it becomes legislation. I'm fairly sure the existing laws with regards to conspiring to commit an act of violence are sufficient without having to take this alarming step.

[edit on 2005-10-17 by wecomeinpeace]

For those who love conspiracies, there is a serious argument to be made based on the post 9/11 result that Western governments are systematically creating laws that make it possible to arrest basically anyone without due process. It started in the US with the Patriot Act and has spread. Is this move coordinated?

If so, would it not support a coordinated executive coup in these nations that effectively takes over the Western world? Who could oppose such a move without arrest with all these laws in place? Even merely speaking out against such a move could get you detained indefinitely on trumped up vague charges.

You have to seriously question the official 9/11 story in light of the seemingly coordinated move among western governments to grant unlimited power to the executive branches post 9/11. Follow the money applies to power as well, and not simply cash.

But that's just for conspiracy lovers, not me of course.

Anyone in Melbourne: