[Muanet] Australia's anti-terror laws and the implication for dissent

[Chris Latham]

Hi All

The opinion piece below by Wanda Fish, originally appeared on the Sydney
Indymedia website and was published in the current issue of Green Left
Weekly. It looks at both the details of the new "anti-terror" laws and
their implication for popular dissent in Australia including the labour
movement. I will also forward an article on attacks on free speech that
have occurred at UWS recently.

In Union

Chris


When terrorism outlaws democracy
Wanda Fish 
On September 27, Australian democracy surrendered to terrorism. On that
day, a coalition of willing federal and state leaders agreed to
anti-terrorism legislation that will enable police persecution of the
Muslim community and threaten dissidents with imprisonment. In a country
without a bill of rights, the prospect of more draconian terror laws
delivers ultimate control through fear. Australia, with its history of
penal colonies, racism and detention centres, is now set to become a
police state. 
When Prime Minister John Howard announced that he would meet with the
state premiers about the need for harsher counter-terrorism measures,
Labor state leaders were critical and called the proposed laws
"totalitarian". 
The secret briefing, given by ASIO, had the desired impact. Within two
hours, the premiers had agreed to surrender our democratic rights to
fight a subjective noun, terrorism. Assuming the state leaders were
bribed with the promise of increased funding for their police forces,
all premiers agreed enthusiastically to use their own police to search,
control and detain "terror suspects". 
The agreement gave Howard the ability to circumvent the Australian
constitution and enable detention of citizens for up two weeks without
charge. ASIO's reach into the community multiplies by 30 when state
police began to operate as secret police. Australians, who have lost
basic rights in the closed-door meeting, are expected to "trust" that
the Howard government is protecting them from an invisible enemy in the
US ''war on terror''. The one concession gained by state leaders was a
10-year sunset clause on the new laws. This means citizens will only
have a decade of surveillance, control orders, preventative detention
and thought police. 
The new "regime" of tougher laws that Howard presented on September 8
has alarmed Australian Muslims, journalists and peace activists who fear
they will be victimised by ASIO raids and "fishing expeditions".
Protesters may be subjected to more police harassment, surveillance and
detention without charge. It will become a crime to "incite" violence
against the community, or against Australia's forces overseas who fight
in an unpopular war. It will also be a crime to communicate messages
that "support" Australia's enemies. 
Presumption of guilt
The new crimes carry seven-year prison terms. Moreover, the laws shift
from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. Writers and
activists will have to prove that their articles or speeches did not
"incite violence". Understandably, civil libertarians, constitutional
lawyers, Muslims, journalists and anti-war campaigners are worried. 
With the devil in the detail, it is important to be both alert and
alarmed about Howard's and the ALP premiers' 12-step plan to
totalitarianism: 
1. Control orders: "People who pose a terrorist risk" will have
year-long control orders placed on them. Tracking devices, travel
restrictions and "association restrictions" are included. While the
government has argued that similar control orders already exist with
Apprehended Violence Orders (AVOs), legal critics have pointed out that
the new terror control orders are significantly more restrictive and can
be imposed with no public accountability because of secrecy restrictions
that hide ASIO's activities from public scrutiny. 
2. Preventative detention: "Suspects" can be detained for up to two
weeks without charge. This step bypasses the judicial system and would
have been unconstitutional if enforced by the Australian Federal Police
(AFP). State police will be able to detain "suspects" who might have
information or might be intending to commit a terrorist act. ASIO,
previously rerliant on less than 2000 federal police officers, will be
able to use 45,000 police from the states and territories to detain
suspects for up to two weeks without charge. This extraordinary power
runs the risk of being used in criminal cases and the harassment of
activists and protest leaders. 
3. Notice to produce: The AFP may request and obtain virtually any
information on any citizen under the banner of "national security". 
4. Access to passenger information: ASIO and the AFP will be given
access to airline passenger information. If Howard follows the US
example, Australians can expect that "no-fly" lists will be used to
disrupt activities and restrict travel options for known activists and
dissidents. 
5. Extensive stop, search and question powers: Federal police will have
the power to stop, search and question any citizen whom they believe
"might have just committed, might be committing, or might be about to
commit a terrorism offence". The subjective judgment of police will
determine what someone might be thinking of doing. The loose definition
of terrorism makes this particular power easy to abuse. 
6. Extending search and interrogation powers to state police at
transport hubs: People at bus stops, taxi ranks, railway stations and
airports can and will be subjected to random searches and the subjective
judgment of police. 
7. ASIO warrants regime: ASIO search warrants will be extended from 28
days to three months, and mail and delivery service warrants will be
extended from 90 days to six months. Moreover, ASIO will be able to
remove and keep anything they take from premises that have been searched
"for as long as needed" for purposes of security. Organisations opposing
the government on industrial relations or student rights are aware of
the potential for this power to be used to spy on them, disrupt activity
and remove records. Lawyers have argued that the extended warrants
enable ASIO to go on "fishing expeditions" that will see innocent
Australians being watched. 
8. Create new offences: The existing sedition offence will be scrapped
and replaced with the broader, new crime of "inciting violence against
the community". Journalists and internet writers who "communicate
inciting messages directed against Australia's forces overseas" and
groups who "support Australia's enemies" could face up to seven years in
prison. The new warrants regime combined with ASIO's unfettered access
to private emails, computer searches and online forums may impact on
cyber-journalism's resolve to report the truth. 
9. Strengthen offences for financing terrorism or providing false or
misleading information under an ASIO questioning warrant: The right to
remain silent is removed, and anyone refusing to answer questions can be
imprisoned. Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser opposed this
regime at an April symposium addressing global leaderships and ethics.
"The legislation is contrary to the rule of law. It is contrary to due
process, to habeas corpus, to the basic rights which we have come to
understand are central to a free and open society", he said. Lawyers
have also asked what "strengthen" means in relation to financing
terrorism, given that under the Criminal Code this offence already
incurs life imprisonment. 
10. Criteria for listing terrorist organisations will be extended:
Organisations that "advocate terrorism" can be banned. Community
lawyers, policy workers, advocates and legal academics have argued that
"the extension of the unprecedented powers to ban terrorist
organisations ... poses the danger that many organisations that publicly
support independence movements such as Fretilin and the ANC will be
vulnerable to proscription". (See <http://www.civilrightsnetwork.org>
<http://www.civilrightsnetwork.org> .) The potential for this list to
grow to include organisations that oppose the government is
self-evident. 
11. Citizenship: The government will extend the waiting period for
citizenship from two to three years and will refuse citizenship on
"security grounds". As a critical electorate and organisations such as
Amnesty International draw unwanted attention to the government's
inhumane treatment of refugees, the immigration department will be able
to make secret decisions based on "national security". The recent
deportation of US peace activist Scott Parkin demonstrated how joint
exercises between ASIO and the department of immigration can quickly and
legally expel dissidents or unwanted refugees. The only explanation that
needs to be given is "for reasons of national security". 
12. Terrorist financing: More invasive processes to ensure that
charities are not used to fund "terrorist organisations" will be
extended to institutions and couriers involved in the process. What ASIO
will deem to be a terrorist organisation is as open-ended as the
definition of terrorism itself. Similar legislation in the UK has
already resulted in legitimate Iraqi orphanage charities being banned
and having their funds seized. 
Civil libertarians have argued that Adolph Hitler introduced similar
legislation for Gestapo police to detain, interrogate, monitor and
imprison Jews who were considered "potential enemies of the German
people". 
Counter-terrorism measures adopted by the United States, Britain and
Australia have unfairly persecuted innocent Muslims with home raids,
interrogation and prolonged detention. In response, some Australian
lawyers established a website (<http://amcran.org> <http://amcran.org> )
offering free advice to the Muslim community, which has been profiled as
a consequence of the war on terror. 
Bypassing anti-discrimination laws, senior government officials have
made statements like "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists
are Muslims". Despite the clear danger of this generalisation, the NSW
police commissioner has gone on public record requesting indemnity for
his police officers: "The reality is that we will stop and search people
of Middle Eastern appearance, not 65-year old Caucasian women" he said
after the September 27 Council of Australian Governments terror summit. 
Lawyers fear that the terror laws will also target high-profile
dissidents, peace activists, trade unionists, student leaders and
protesters - virtually anyone who loudly and effectively opposes the
government. 
Silencing dissent
Howard's intention to use these powers to silence protest is clear, as
he has consistently followed British PM Tony Blair and US President
George Bush as role models. London's public disgrace of an 82-year-old
pensioner manhandled and interrogated under the British terror laws is
likely to be repeated in Australia. The pensioner's "crime" was that he
shouted "not true" as Jack Straw was defending Britain's involvement in
Iraq. 
Even some of the corporate media say the new terror laws go too far. For
instance, the September 15 Sydney Morning Herald published a piece by
Daryl Melham warning: "The war on terrorism has gone a step too far. The
offence of supporting terrorism raises very serious problems. Many
political dissenters could fall within the operation of such a law. Just
what will be considered support for violence will be a most difficult
question. In 2003, 500,000 people marched in Sydney to oppose
Australia's pending invasion of Iraq. Were they supporting an enemy?" 
The brutal police killing of an innocent Brazilian on his way to work in
London was a dramatic reminder of the ultimate consequence of fighting
terrorism with terror powers. 
When the first round of terror laws were hurriedly introduced in 2002,
the Senate was able to exclude children and shorten detention times.
Many Australians condemned the laws as an overreaction to unknown
terrorist threats. 
In his foreword to Jenny Hocking's Terror Laws: ASIO, Counter Terrorism
and the Threat to Democracy (UNSW Press, 2004) Professor George Williams
warned, "Terrorism was part of Australian life before September 11,
[2001] and will continue to be so even after the current 'war against
terrorism' has been waged. Today, however, we can only hope that our new
terror laws do not do more damage to our democratic rights than the
threat of terrorism itself." 
A flaw in the 2002 legislation and the proposed "greater" powers lies
with the difficulty of defining terrorism, and therefore a terrorist
act. Last month, the United Nations was unable to agree on an acceptable
definition of terrorism. The ASIO Anti-Terrorism Act defines "terrorism"
by specifying what are not classified as "terrorist acts". The exception
of "legal and non-violent protest" within the act gives little comfort
to groups who have been involved in peaceful protests that have become
violent following police intervention or harassment. 
As the public debate heats up about the potential and real impact of the
ASIO terror laws, the focus of terrorism should shift from "Muslim
extremists", who have yet to commit a terrorist act within Australia, to
government extremists who have surrendered basic democratic rights in
their war on a subjective noun. 
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock admitted on ABC Radio National on
September 20 that in the past year ASIO made 44,000 assessments of
"persons who are potential security risks". ASIO's well-documented
history of keeping files on peace activists, trade unionists and others
suggests that a few thousand assessments would include people who have
expressed strong views opposing the Howard government's policies. The
numbers of dissenters swell as the list of issues angering Australians
grows: the unpopular ''war on terror'', the invasion and occupation of
Iraq, the mandatory detention of refugees seeking asylum, the new
industrial relations legislation that removes workers' rights and the
privatisation of Telstra to name just a few. 
The burgeoning of dissent and the move to give ASIO stronger powers has
compelled the Victorian Law Foundation and the Fitzroy Legal Service to
establish the informative Activist Rights website at
<http://www.activistrights.org.au/terror_laws.asp>
<http://www.activistrights.org.au/terror_laws.asp> . This time the
lawyers didn't couch their warnings in careful legalese. "Danger! New
laws criminalise protesters", it says, giving practical and detailed
advice on what to do if ASIO comes calling. 
The Howard government has continued to ignore those protesting
Australia's involvement in the US-led "war on terror". Now Howard is
ignoring public opposition to the terror laws, likely to be passed by a
Senate he controls. 
Angry Australians have flooded radio talk-back shows to the point where
the hosts have had to beg for calls from supporters of the laws. The
question asked by every caller is: Why are we surrendering the same
democratic freedoms that those who wage the war on terror claim to
protect? 
The government's response to terrorism seems to have given unknown
terrorists their first victory. Howard has surrendered our basic
democratic rights for the next decade. Perhaps some smart constitutional
lawyer can mount a case against Howard and his attorney-general for
"supporting the enemy"? 
[Wanda Fish has lived and worked in the US, South-East Asia and
Australia. After a 30-year career in the corporate world, Wanda turned
to the campaign for human rights and peace. This article was first
published on <http://sydney.indymedia.org> <http://sydney.indymedia.org>
Wanda's articles are also available on
<http://www.eftel.com/~cleverfish> <http://www.eftel.com/~cleverfish> .
For more information about Australia's terror laws and your rights, see
<http://www.civilrightsnetwork.org/contact.htm>
<http://www.civilrightsnetwork.org/contact.htm> ;
<http://www.nswccl.org.au/publications/links.php>
<http://www.nswccl.org.au/publications/links.php> , and <
http://www.activistrights.org.au>] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.murdoch.edu.au/pipermail/muanet/attachments/20051013/3246a516/attachment-0001.html