Concerned
As a libertarian I am concerned on the new anti terrorist laws..
The govt with bi partisan support from the labor party intend introducing to Parliment additional laws that have been requested by the security services .
Although I have not seen these laws I am concerned at least on one proposal.
That the foreign affairs dept can proscribe an area that it will be forbidden for Australians to visit.
It will be up to any person visiting such areas to prove that they visited such areas with valid reasons . Thus reversing the presumption of innocence..
If it's areas like Syria , Afghanistan and Iraq, then there's no issue. I think visitors to and from there would understand the additional security concerns
But it puts too much power into the hands of government . It reverses the presumption of innocence. It is up to the government to prove their case.
Difficult times sometimes calls for difficult measures.
So don't travel to these god forsaken places for a while. Not too much to ask is it?
Not the point . We can overreact to fear and lose liberty . The very thing that we are fighting for. I am not saying we may need tighter laws so as my liberty is not impinged by someone else . But I would like to hear the justification for restricting my liberty ..
I do not know in what context certain places would be forbidden to visit, but would it be possible that there is also concern for Australians who may be kidnapped and the serious ramifications that could ensue.
As we know, Turkish diplomats were kidnapped by IS resulting in Turkey's non-compliance with the West's request for use of their airports.
There is also the issue of trying to rescue Australians on the ground. This itself could be costly also in terms of life.
There are places in Australia where the general public is not permitted to go. I don't think anyone looks on this as a loss of liberty.
I think a little calm reflection is required. In time, these proscriptions will be lifted.
I don't think it is the governments role from forbidding me from visiting wherever I wish . Yes we should prevent people from joining foreign armies we are in conflict with or prosecute on their return but the burden of proof must remain with the government.
Not forbidding. But if you visit problem areas then accept that you may be under closer scrutiny.
Hell many years ago I was stopped at Brusbane airport and questioned over an hour because I travelled between 5 countries in the space of a few weeks, some of which were drug smuggling hot spots.
Law or no law, these people need to do their jobs in the interest of public safety
Exactly Pete :)
Now you are starting to get the message - perhaps it is time you joined us in the next march :)
Why you might even enjoy being led astray ;)
Twils there is a world of difference from being prosecuted for trespass , where I am presumed to be innocent and the prosecution have to make their case..
Sol yes you were stopped and questioned fine , you were under no obligation to answer any of their questions.
but imagine that you were arrested just for being there. So now you are guilty .
You now you have to prove that you had a valid reason . Maybe a death certificate from burying your mum .,,
but the onus of proof has been reversed ,
Pete: You're impressing me more and more !!
Fleur darling :)
I thought you got engaged last weekend - are you trying to cut in on my turf ?
Suze: so sorry sweet thing..I thought you would be off him since he didn't follow through with the dinner date..which.. I might add is a good thing or who knows you might have had to foot the bill!!
Yes you are probably right Fleur :)
One should never trust a man if he is not a tree hugger.
And you are so right about the bill - he seems only interested in money.
The dinner invitation stands the next time Blondie can visit the big smoke as does my insisitance on settling the accountant..
I often talk to trees
Pete: you're a man of stature....Suze: we've misjudged him and should be ashamed of ourselves!
Have a beaut Friday...both of you!!
The trees are talking back...
? Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic
Taking our freedoms away bit by bit
Do you want to pay even more taxes to upgrade the security of the nation?
Do you want to avoid more taxes by accepting the slight tempory loss of freedom for the good of all?
I think that Aussies just love to whinge about anything.
It is never a tempory loss, same as taxes are never tempory
Of we didn't have welfare bludgers, taxes would have been temporary.
All of a sudden your a capitalist!!!!
Life can only be understood...backwards...but it must be lived forwards !!
Who would want to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria at the present time anyway.
Any Muslim who had come here escaping persecution would not want to go anywhere near there ...unless (in my books) they had an ulterior motive.
You seem to be forgetting its any place in the world the govt says. Maybe you know more than me Radish but there is no faith or race implicated in the law and can be anyone. Maybe like not allowing USA citizens to go to Cuba so they go to Canada and then Cuba or used to. Like Unionist sending money to Nth Ireland or something like that. The scope is unlimited as to what the govt decides is unacceptable. Get questioned and you cannot tell anyone about it even if discharged from custody without charge. The pmedia cannot tell the public anything about ASIO and the like even if or when its in the public interest/right to know.
I understood it was "terrorist hot spots" i.e. Syria and Iraq. The people of concern are the 160 or so under surveillance.
Frm the Daily Telegraph of 15 September.
"LANDMARK laws banning Australians from travelling to terror hot spots such as Iraq and Syria will be introduced to federal parliament next week.
The laws will make it an offence to travel to any terrorist region without a legitimate reason that can be verified by intelligence agencies.
Legislation lowering the threshold on the burden of proof to prosecute Australians suspected of terrorism activity will also be introduced"
That still makes it any spot on earth the govt designates as a hot spot. It is up to them. You will find that no specific land area is mentioned ie open ended.
The laws will make it an offence to travel to any terrorist region without a legitimate reason that can be verified by intelligence agencies.
This is the problem Raddy
Radish
n order to tighten existing laws to combat these threats, the Bill will:
create new offences for 'advocating terrorism' and for entering or remaining in a 'declared zone';broaden the criteria and streamline the process for the listing of terrorist organisations;extend instances in which a control order may be sought; extend the sunsetting provisions of the preventative detention order and control order regimes; and include a sunset clause for the 'declared zone' offence;provide certain law enforcement agencies with additional tools needed to investigate, arrest and prosecute those supporting foreign conflicts;limit the means of travel for foreign fighting or support for foreign fighters; andstrengthen protections at Australia's borders.http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2014/ThirdQuarter/23September2014Counter-TerrorismLegislationAmendmentForeignFightersBill.aspx
Radish, it could be something as simple as wanting to visit family. Many who came here had to leave friends, family and often ageing and infirm parents behind. Not everyone who goes there has the intention of fighting.
Inquiry into racial vilification law in NSW
The Liberal Democrats are concerned with the terms of reference for this inquiry, in particular:
"whether section 20D establishes a realistic test for the offence of racial vilification in line with community expectations;"
The Liberal Democrats do not believe "community expectations" should be a primary factor regarding freedom of speech. At one time, suggesting interracial marriage, the abolition of slavery or the right of women to vote would have been completely out of line with "community expectations".
Our progress to a liberal democratic society has not been helped by restricting speech that the community found offensive, but by allowing it. It would be arrogant to assume that we now have a perfect society and any speech outside of "community expectations" may be legitimately suppressed.
The Liberal Democrats believe the government’s main role in restricting speech is preventing "imminent lawless or violent action". The often quoted "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is one example, as are direct threats of violence, or inciting a riot. These involve a direct and identifiable victim or victims who can reasonably be expected to suffer actual harm as a direct consequence of the action. Prohibitions on child pornography are similarly justified.
How many politicians do the lib democrats have in the parliament ?
One
I understand it is ONE...David Leyonhjelm and he is contemplating being an Independent I think. He has a problem keeping staff but I note he has a new staff member called Helen Dale.
Her previous name was Helen Demidenko. People may remember the controversy about her!
The East German Stasi had similar powers. 10 years for disclosing a ASIO operative who could be the IT maintenance man or an office junior. There is no distinction.
This also gives ASIO immunity for criminal and civil liability in certain circumstances.
Many, including lawyers and academics, have said they fear the agency will abuse this power.
Those who identify ASIO agents could also face a decade in prison under the new bill, a tenfold increase on the existing maximum penalty.
The new bill also allows ASIO to seek just one warrant to access a limitless number of computers on a computer network when attempting to monitor a target, which lawyers, rights groups, academics and Australian media organisations have condemned.
Bin Laden has won a lot hasn,t he ? The bastard is dead but he is still winning while we lose a bit every year.
Despite this, Senator Brandis refused to say whether reporting on cases similar to Australia's foreign spy agency ASIS allegedly bugging East Timor's cabinet and the Australian Signals Directorate tapping the Indonesian president and his wife's mobile phone would result in journalists or whistleblowers being jailed.
10 years jail for anything the govt wants secret even if its commercial spying like the East Timor bugging or disclosure for stuff thats in the foreign press. Haneef scenario waiting to happen from a trigger happy Andrews type buffoon or worse a person spending ten years in jail for bugger all. Embarrassment is worth ten years ? Wife killers get less with a good lawyer.
You cannot run ani telligence service and then disclose the agents ..or the information obtained ,,,
Pete,
Regarding your concern, this has been echoed by BloombergView.
How to De-Radicalize Terrorists http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-24/how-to-de-radicalize-terrorists?alcmpid=view
Abstracts ...
"...The challenge is immense. At least 2,000 Westerners are thought to be among the 15,000 foreigners estimated to be fighting in Syria and Iraq, according to U.S. intelligence officials. Not all of them pose a direct danger to their home countries: No more than 1 in 9 such fighters have usually sought to conduct attacks after returning home. They can easily radicalize others, however.
... New laws will need to be written carefully to avoid abridging civil liberties. Australia, which last week broke up an alleged Islamic State plot to kidnap and behead random victims, is probably going too far in proposing to bar citizens from even traveling to certain designated parts of the world. Laws allowing governments to revoke the citizenship of suspected terrorists will be counterproductive if they alienate those fighters who have grown genuinely disillusioned with jihad and want to quit the fight.
...
Over the past decade, programs that purport to “deprogram” or “de-radicalize” jihadis have been established in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Egypt and Morocco -- all using similar techniques: Independent, moderate clerics challenge prisoners' warped views of Islam. Psychologists and social scientists assess their motivations and the sincerity of their conversions. And, further along in the process, prisoners engage in team-building activities designed to replace the camaraderie of jihad.
Several of these programs claim impressive success rates -- at least 80 percent in Saudi Arabia, virtually 100 percent in Singapore. .... Even after all this, the ex-jihadis’ understanding of Islam remains fairly radical by non-Saudi standards. The program has had several high-profile failures.
...
To design the most effective rehabilitation strategies for their citizens, Western countries will need a better understanding of what attracts the people to militant activity abroad in the first place. Most Western recruits aren't particularly religious; they’re attracted more by the romance of defending fellow Muslims and by the brotherhood they find on the battlefield.
Disputing their understanding of specific Koranic teachings, as Singapore’s Religious Rehabilitation Groupdoes, may help counter some of the twisted ideology they pick up once there, but it won’t necessarily replace the sense of purpose that jihad offers.
Rehabilitation can be well worth the effort, because any “defectors” who can be turned can become sources of intelligence or, at least as important, propaganda. More than any number of moderate clerics, they can present a powerful and graphic argument against jihad."
One of the problems is radicalisation of disaffected youths in the first place. One of the sources is imans who have been brought to western countries from poor areas in Pakistan in paricular. .These Imans have no concept of a pluralistic society .But bring a fundamentalist view and enhance the divisions within Islam.
I suppose this is a situation where local Islamic communities have to be on the alert.
you voted them in
Radish
Crikey has a different view and I may be overstating the case. Still I recall the hype over Haneef and the overreach by Andrews for political raesons and have serious doubts about this govt and its competence or integrity.
Crikey
2. “Journalists can be jailed for revealing intelligence operations.”
In fact, they can be jailed for revealing information about a narrow range of covert operations called “special intelligence operations”, which must be authorised by the Attorney-General, in the same way that has long applied to anyone who reveals information about the Australian Federal Police’s “controlled operations”. The designation of an operation as an SIO can’t be retrospective, it can’t involve activities that would otherwise require a warrant (like surveillance), and the designation must apply to a specific individual and to specific conduct that would otherwise breach the law — that is, it would be very difficult (although arguably not impossible) to construct an SIO that could be open-ended in terms of what it would permit a specified officer to do.
What new laws Pete?