ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS?

The justification for the military involvement in the Afghanistan-Pakistan embroglio is counter-terrorism.

On the domestic front, so that people will be safer, the Government is proposing to allow police to invade homes without a warrant from a judge.

ABC National Security Correspondent, Matt Brown reports:

The Federal Government has unveiled plans to toughen its counter-terrorism laws that would allow police to break into a suspect’s home without getting approval from a judge.

It also wants to make it easier to stop suspects getting out of jail on bail . . . Attorney-General Robert McClelland says the tougher laws would protect Australians. “The Government is committed to ensuring the focus of Australia’s national security and counter-terrorism laws remains on preventing a terrorist attack from occurring in the first place,” he said.

Fascism is facilitated in steady baby steps made possible by fear and the bidding war between the major political parties to be “tough” on terrorism. That, I believe, is the lesson of the Weimar Republic. Still there is opposition:

Nicola McGarrity from the Terrorism Law Project at the University of New South Wales says the laws could take away the protection of the judiciary.

“It’s fundamentally undermining the safeguards that exist,” she said.

It is not clear why the Government is proposing this measure at this time given that the most recent allegations have not been yet subject to the scrutiny of the judicial process.

Shadow Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis said he “was sceptical about the Government’s commitment to national security”.

The report, if not the Attorney-General has not made the case as why this measure is of such importance. What are the alternatives, if alternatives are indeed necessary? Herein, is another example, of the necessity for legislation to protect human rights that requires a full explanation of the public interest compared to the inherent risks of the proposal and subject to mandatory re-evaluation.

ELSEWHERE:

The Federal Government released a discussion paper suggesting proposed changes to the federal terrorism laws. The Government is enabling public submissions on the National Security Legislation. Apparently, as Robert Merkel reports at Larvatus Prodeo the government is proposing to make it a crime to attack somebody based on nationality or religions. According to Peter Kemp in comments the situation seems covered under Commonwealth Criminal Code under Incitement.

It occurs to me that people may be inclined to express views and positions, without real intent or ability to follow through. We cannot be offended by every angry comment somebody might make. The issue raised is the limits to free speech, and perhaps the “right” to be prejudiced against other people. I try not to behave in that way myself, but I am not sure I can hold that as a standard for others. At the same time, I think it important to challenge what is said on the basis of reason and nonviolence.

Advertisements