The Sydney Morning Herald Terrorism bill 'worst legislation ever seen' By Lee Glendinning April 9 2002
Prominent legal professionals condemned the federal Government's proposed emergency terrorism legislation yesterday, demanding it be withdrawn from parliament and re-drafted. During an inquiry into the legislation - which critics say has been rushed through because of last year's terrorist attacks in the United States - those making public submissions referred to the bill as "panic-stricken", "extraordinarily bad" and "the worst legislation ever seen". The Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill defines a terrorist act as "an action done or a threat made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause", excluding lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action. The president of the International Commission of Jurists, Supreme Court Justice John Dowd, opened the public submissions yesterday, saying that while an act could be unlawful in nature in most cases, it was not necessarily an act of terrorism. He warned the Senate inquiry that the legislation had the potential to change the nature of Australian society, with the possibility of trivial or minor offences being interpreted as acts of terrorism. "Does this mean when you walk down the street in protest and somebody breaks out and breaks something, it makes it unlawful?" he asked. "At what point in time will a protest become unlawful?" While the bill should be hastened, more time was needed to greatly improve it, he said. "We ought not, as Australians, countenance having such legislation on the books with the mind that we could tidy it up later." During questioning, representatives from the Attorney-General's Department were asked if someone arrested for cutting bolts in the recent protest at Woomera would be seen to be involved in an act of terrorism under this legislation. A representative confirmed this would be the case. The president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Cameron Murphy, lambasted the bill, telling the legislation committee that it destroyed the principles of democracy in order to suppress terrorism. Mr Murphy cited examples of Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi being labelled as terrorists in the past, but now recognised as freedom fighters. "This is some of the most insidious legislation we have ever seen in this nation. It gives the Government the right to virtually outlaw another group, and has the potential to sit on the statute stacks for years before it is ever used." The social commentator Eva Cox made an impassioned speech, saying the legislation had the potential to stifle democratic processes by trying to protect against terrorism. "We really are constrained to things that seriously endanger the security of our country and don't pick up the normal rabble-rousing of political dissent," she said. "This legislation is extraordinarily badly drafted." The inquiry will continue next week with a hearing of further public submissions in Melbourne. This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/09/1017206318512.html ************************************************************************* This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." . -- -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/ Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
