WAR: Australia Introduces Tough New Counter-Terrorism Laws

Drawing on the experience of the London bombings, Australian Prime Minister John Howard has announced a series of tough new laws designed to prevent similar attacks from occurring in Australia. The laws include granting more powers to Federal Police and Australia's domestic intelligence agency ASIO. These powers would include the ability to stop-and-search suspects, the power to access aircraft passenger lists and the use of tracking devices to monitor the activities of suspected terrorists, amongst others. Whilst John Howard was quick to rule out any notion of a police state, civil libertarians are concerned at the potential for abuse of the new laws.



These new powers are something of a paradox. They are being viewed with guarded suspicion in the media and even within John Howard's own party. Howard himself was quick to counter arguments that the laws were tantamount to the establishment of a "quasi-police state". And, naturally enough, the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network has expressed concern over "how this will impact on quite legitimate free speech". So clearly there is an unease regarding the introduction of these new laws, as is to be expected whenever any government agency is granted broad new powers that have the potential to have a detrimental effect on civil liberties.

The other side of the coin, and a view expressed by many people I have discussed the issue with, is that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. Many Australians seem willing to grant our security agencies greater powers in exchange for enhanced security and a greater feeling of safety. And whilst the civil libertarian in me cringes at the thought of such powers being misused, I find I have a difficult time disagreeing with the notion that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

Having said that, I am hardly the target demographic of these laws. Perhaps if I were of Middle Eastern heritage, I may feel as though these laws were indeed an attack on my civil liberties. I doubt I shall ever see any evidence of these laws being enacted, other than perhaps being searched at a sporting venue. But does the fact that they may be out of sight for most Australians make them ethical? Are these laws, as John Howard has said "unusual but necessary" or have we indeed taken the first step down the road towards a police state?

Related News Links:
www.theadvertiser.news.com.au
www.smh.com.au
www.heraldsun.news.com.au

[edit on 8/9/05 by Jeremiah25]

[edit on 8/9/05 by Jeremiah25]

And as usual, Howard follows panting and pissing himself in the footsteps of Dubya. No surprises here. And the reason that some in Howard's own Liberal Party are expressing concern and doubt is because they're not privy to the NWO plan like little Johnny is.

There will always be some with little power who work as if they were above it. And will find evidence where there is none by the mistaken idea that you must have something to hide even if you have nothing you are hiding.

It happens in American every day.

I was taken to court for non-payment of child support. I showed that I was paying. Yet the judge sentenced me to 180 days in jail. It took 171 days to get the matter to a federal court where the ruling was I didn't meet the necessary requirements under federal law to be brought into a court in the first place.

Still that didn't stop me from losing everything I had. And it did nothing to restore my losses.

Don't trust everything Prime Miniature Howard offers when it seeks to take your rights and offer security in return.

Bad things happen to the innocent, the naive, and the trusting.

It's terrible and I am amazed that Australian citizens are sitting by and accepting these things. Do they not realise these new laws stop any dissent? Do they not realise now they have no rights?

It is a police state, it is no longer the land of the free.

I for one will continue to speak out for what I believe in.

Mayet wrote:
It's terrible and I am amazed that Australian citizens are sitting by and accepting these things.

Are you kidding? As far as civil liberties issues are concerned, Australians roll over easier than any country I can think of. If Huxley's Brave New World exists anywhere, it's in Oz. Remember the Port Arthur massacre? There were feds caught on tape/camera (I forget which) standing by watching as the supposed "Martin Bryant" walked around making shots that SAS guys said they would be hard-pressed to make. And then a couple of months later, Australians are asked to hand in all their guns to the feds, and they did so without so much as a murmur. Try that in the U.S. and see what happens.

Again with the old chestnut, "you have nothing to fear if you are not doing anything wrong"...did the Jews do something wrong in the late 1930's? Did the gypsies or the mentally retarded?

Why is it government's enjoy the benefit of the doubt and are thought to be incapable of mismanagement and abuse? If you write a loophole or something that can be exploited, its WHEN will it be exploited, not WILL it be exploited? This is human nature and we should never, ever have to trust politicians. It should be codified and concrete law which protects us from megalomaniacal politicians.

Heres me going back to my adopted home in Australia in a week which is now no better off than this glorified Alcatraz - FKA - Great Britain.

Yes Wecomeinpeace, I have read all about the Port Arthur Massacre and I have always agreed that it was a plot to gett eh guns removed. Tasmania was the last holdout for gun laws and so Port Arthur happened.

His kill ratio was amazing, shot from the wrong hand and all. No I do not ever swallow the official line about Port Arthur... of course they couldnt have an inquest, to many inconsistencies would have happened as shown over and over on the internet.

People amaze me, is there something in our childhood shots that kill the area of the brain that lets us see common sense, or think deeply.

Have Australians been effectively lobotomized? Are the mobile cell translaters embedded with a signal to dull Australian senses and make them obey and turn into sheeples?

*shrug yeah lets sell telstra. Its worth 27 billion now and losting 150 million a day, yet it made a 4.4 billion profit last year. They whinge "oh the infrastructure" well fix it with that 4.4 billion profit and keep the asset.
*shrug lets start uranium mining
*shrug lets destroy workers rights...
*shrug lets crawl so far up Mr Bushes bum that we poke our ugly eyebrowed head out of his mouth....
*shrug lets make these new laws against "terrorism" so that anyone who dissents or causes protest against the government's insidious changes can be stopped and destroyed......

Serves the gov right for stopping these muslim clerics being part of the summit..

"Oh we don't want to talk to you, you don't follow the official line". It was Howards duty of care to invite "all muslim groups" not just pick and choose those that would agree with him.

He is a little snot and none of the other politicians are any better.

*shrug lets crawl so far up Mr Bushes bum that we poke our ugly eyebrowed head out of his mouth....

I like that one.

From the original article:

A court could issue control orders, similar to AVOs, restricting travel and association for people considered a terror risk.

So all it takes is for the government to "consider" you a terrorist "risk" and your freedoms can be quashed. Somehow the word "consider" doesn't imply a decision by a court. And "risk" implies that you don't have to actually commit any crimes to be put on the list.

The 12-month control orders could include use of tracking devices.

How long before they are implantable I wonder?

"We are, unfortunately, living in an era and time when unusual but necessary measures are needed to cope with an unusual and threatening situation."

An unusual and threatening situation? Such as a government taking away liberties in response to attacks that were carried out by their own operatives?

Existing sedition provisions would be replaced by an offence of inciting violence – "those who communicate inciting messages directed against other groups within our community, including Australian forces overseas".

So if you send an email to Howard's office calling him a bastard does that count? Seems under this definition, protesting against the government could be easily deemed as "inciting violence", especially if you add agents provocateur into the mix.

Welcome to the New World Order, Australia.

[edit on 2005-9-8 by wecomeinpeace]

Muslim and legal groups say the Federal Government's new counter-terrorism laws will unfairly target the Muslim community and could lead to Australia becoming a "police state".

The new security measures allow for terror suspects to be held for up to 14 days without charge and the monitoring of suspects for 12 months through a tracking device.

The new laws will also make inciting terrorist attacks an offence.

The premiers of Queensland and New South Wales say they will examine the new anti-terror laws.

Anjad Mehboob, chief executive of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, believes it is a step backwards for Australia and the Muslim community.

"We feel that this is going to drive people who might be contemplating acts of violence and terrorism underground," he said.

Vicki Sentas from the Federation of Community Legal Centres in Victoria says the laws will erode basic civil liberties.
www.abc.net.au...

If I tell everyone to wake up and fight back now before it's too late, does that mean I am inciting terrorism?

Unfortunately it's human nature that no one other than a few uni students will be willing to join the cause until it's too late. Make noise now and people will call you paranoid/delusional, make noise later on and the government will call you a terrorist.

This is bullsh*t and the sad part is poeple will do nothing to stop this

Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says he does not believe the Federal Government's new counter-terrorism measures are extreme and could lead to Australia becoming a "police state".

Concerns have been raised that the Federal Government's planned new counter-terrorism measures will unfairly punish innocent people.

The changes include detaining suspects for up to 14 days without charge and then monitoring them for 12 months with a tracking device.

Mr Ruddock says authorities such as ASIO and the Australian Federal Police need better ways to monitor people who have trained with a terrorist organisation.
www.abc.net.au...

I personally only have a problem with someone bing detained for 48 hours under certain conditions. What conditions? Also, I'd hate to be the one detained for no reason.

However, having said that, the innocent people of this country should really have nothing to fear from these new laws.

Clearly there is a great deal of anger and anxiety regarding the introduction of these new laws. I think it bears pointing out, however, that some of them need to be contextualised to a certain degree. For example, the power to hold suspects without charge applies only "under certain conditions following a terrorist strike" (Reference). It's not as though the Federal Police or ASIO can hold detain and hold people at will, or based on a mere whimsy. I personally do not feel it is unreasonable to hold suspects for 48 hours after a terror attack has occurred.

The main problem I have with these laws is the fact that they are being somewhat rushed into being. They have not even been costed yet and are still unread by many of our politicians.

The question I would ask those on this thread who have expressed anger or anxiety regarding these new laws is this: what should the government do instead? After all, it is the primary responsibility of any government to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. Clearly, the government feels as though terrorism is a significant threat to our security. Agencies such as ASIO and the Federal Police are charged with combatting this threat, so if laws such as these are too Draconian, what should they be doing instead to ensure that Australians are as safe from terrorist attack as possible?

I can only see Muslim extremists being concerned about this,which i say boo hoo here have a tissue.

Though the abuse of these laws may eventually encompass harmless or good belief systems,example:if a person would rather die than give up their faith they may fall into the category of an extremist.Which is where i can understand a little angst for the future.

Im a Australian citizen, i would just liek to correct some people here. I do not agree with this whole new counter-terroism laws at all, as they are just a roos for the government to keep track of some certain people.
These new laws will not affect 99.99% of our population, so please stop making out that we are some highly policed state who are so idiotic that we handed over our guns to the feds without a second thought.
The port arthur incident was very suss, and i have no doubts that martin byrant was probably trained by the SAS. But even the arguement agaisnt automatic weapons is a strong one, why would anyone need a automatic firearm unless they inteded to kill alot of people? Guns are fine for hunting etc, but geez you dont need a high powerd assault rifle agaisnt a rabbit.
Yes i have friends who had to hand in some very expensive guns, and got a very small rebate from the government.
But from this we do still have the "odd" shooting, but there has been no mass killings in any schools of any sort,2 years ago some guy at the local uni try to shoot up the cafe. Only able to kill 1 or 2 people if my memory serves me right. We aussies aint balless, but dam its safer in the streets when you know the guy eyeballing you at max is going to have a knife on him rather than a glock....
I think that it does keep out country safer from ourselves if we dont sell ammunition at the local retail store.

Originally posted by wang
Im a Australian citizen, i would just liek to correct some people here. I do not agree with this whole new counter-terroism laws at all, as they are just a roos for the government to keep track of some certain people.



uh.....yeah!


As for your comments on Martin Bryant, well thats a whole other conspiracy theory isn't it.

[edit on 9-9-2005 by Figjam]

[edit on 9-9-2005 by Figjam]

...what should they be doing instead to ensure that Australians are as safe from terrorist attack as possible?

How about we run around in circles screaming and tearing our hair out because the big bad terrorist boogey man is coming to get us all. Anyone could be next. Maybe me...maybe YOU!

I could say more regarding this, especially in light of 9-11, 7/7 and the Bali bombing, but this is ATSNN and I know such ideas are not overly encouraged around here, so, I'll curb my own unpopular ideas by quoting those wise words uttered by the great George W. Bush:

"Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories that attempt to shift the blame away from the guilty, away from the terrorists."



Bring on the terror laws...I feel safer already.

Bloody Howard, I wish he'd get his head of George Bush's big fat ugly ar*e!!!

He might as well have taken the draft of the Patriot Act, renamed "USA" to "Australia" and enacted it

Originally posted by Manincloak
Bloody Howard, I wish he'd get his head of George Bush's big fat ugly ar*e!!!

He might as well have taken the draft of the Patriot Act, renamed "USA" to "Australia" and enacted it

Okay, but Australia's relationship with the United States is a seperate issue. Consider this: if Australia, God forbid, was subjected to a major terorist attack and, as was the case in London the terrorists were residing in Australia, the government would be equally criticised if they had done nothing to prevent the attack or to ensure our safety.

So they have to do something. Yes, a lot of it is probably just paranoia, but I for one believe that the government does have a legitimate obligation to protect Australian citizens from the possibility of terrorist attacks. So my original question remains: what should the government do instead? What steps will sufficiently safeguard against terrorism to the extent possible (knowing full well that no plan can offer guaranteed protection) whilst not infringing on civil liberties? Anybody care to offer a serious answer?