![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The new proposed "anti-terror" laws
Oct. 20th, 2005 06:22 pmMalcom Fraser made a speech regarding the new laws last night at the State Library (linking to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
earlymorningair.
He sums up a lot of what I've been thinking about the new laws.
These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight, should not exist in any democratic country.
Michelle Grattan also commented in The Age on the 16th October.
Particularly:
It is outrageous that the Government wanted to leave so little time between the planned date of release and the passage of the legislation, which it intends to get through Parliament before Christmas.
That it has such scant regard for the processes of democratic discussion on a piece of legislation that tramples comprehensively on people's rights makes you worry about how it would use the law itself.
One Day.
That's how long they wanted to debate this. One. Day.
Yes, it does make me worry.
It also makes me ask: why, exactly, do we need these new laws? Terrorism is essentially organised crime. We have laws against organised crime. They've been mostly effective. What is so different now that we need to effectively dismantle the protection of our current laws for something resembling totalitarian rule?
To quote Malcom Fraser again:
This seems to be a law for secret behaviour by authorities, for making somebody disappear. It is a law that one would expect in tyrannical countries and not in Australia. Do we do nothing about it because we believe it will not apply to ourselves? Do we believe it is only going to apply to people of a different religion who look a bit different?
And that is where it's at. And unfortunately, yes, people do.
Because these laws could never be abused in any way, shape or form. And naturally we - law abiding, quiet, middle class citizens - could never find ourselves on the wrong side of them, sitting in a police station unable to let people know that we've been detained, struggling to tell them what they want to know without being sure what it is that we're suspected of.
(And incidentally - 14 days without trial? You can do a lot in 14 days. People will confess to things if sleep deprived, insulin-deprived, all sorts of things. Most don't leave bruises.)
Or being shot as a suspected terrorist, because we didn't hear the police orders over our ipods.
I still want to know: what is wrong with our current laws? Why is it so important to push these laws through in haste and without proper debate?
Dean is drawing comparisions between this and aspects of both the Wiemar Republic and early Nazi Germany. I'm not quite going this far yet, but it is worth remembering that without vigilance and active questioning of politicians, freedom can - and has been - lost.
earlymorningair.He sums up a lot of what I've been thinking about the new laws.
These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight, should not exist in any democratic country.
Michelle Grattan also commented in The Age on the 16th October.
Particularly:
It is outrageous that the Government wanted to leave so little time between the planned date of release and the passage of the legislation, which it intends to get through Parliament before Christmas.
That it has such scant regard for the processes of democratic discussion on a piece of legislation that tramples comprehensively on people's rights makes you worry about how it would use the law itself.
One Day.
That's how long they wanted to debate this. One. Day.
Yes, it does make me worry.
It also makes me ask: why, exactly, do we need these new laws? Terrorism is essentially organised crime. We have laws against organised crime. They've been mostly effective. What is so different now that we need to effectively dismantle the protection of our current laws for something resembling totalitarian rule?
To quote Malcom Fraser again:
This seems to be a law for secret behaviour by authorities, for making somebody disappear. It is a law that one would expect in tyrannical countries and not in Australia. Do we do nothing about it because we believe it will not apply to ourselves? Do we believe it is only going to apply to people of a different religion who look a bit different?
And that is where it's at. And unfortunately, yes, people do.
Because these laws could never be abused in any way, shape or form. And naturally we - law abiding, quiet, middle class citizens - could never find ourselves on the wrong side of them, sitting in a police station unable to let people know that we've been detained, struggling to tell them what they want to know without being sure what it is that we're suspected of.
(And incidentally - 14 days without trial? You can do a lot in 14 days. People will confess to things if sleep deprived, insulin-deprived, all sorts of things. Most don't leave bruises.)
Or being shot as a suspected terrorist, because we didn't hear the police orders over our ipods.
I still want to know: what is wrong with our current laws? Why is it so important to push these laws through in haste and without proper debate?
Dean is drawing comparisions between this and aspects of both the Wiemar Republic and early Nazi Germany. I'm not quite going this far yet, but it is worth remembering that without vigilance and active questioning of politicians, freedom can - and has been - lost.
