Heavy-handed lawmakers are the real agents of terror

Greg says:

12:39pm | 14/02/12

Except that the laws are not restricted to the nutbag jihadists, they apply to all of us.

Under this legislation, ny political party of even a lobby group could be defined as a “terrorist organisation”, and its members would become instant criminals, as would any people who associated with them.

Aa criticism of the government or a politician could be considered a pre-emptive act of terrorism.

People who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither.

Jack says:

01:20pm | 14/02/12

The entire article was about a bunch of people who got sent to jail despite never having actually done anything.

You, sir, win at the internets.

marley says:

01:22pm | 14/02/12

@Greg - for an organisation to be listed as being a terrorist organisation, it has either to be found by a court to be such, or it has to be “listed” (ie proscribed) by the attorney general. 

To list an organisation, the AG must be “satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation:
•  is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act has occurred or will occur); or
•  advocates the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act has occurred or will occur).”

That pretty much eliminates your lobby groups and your political parties. 

Not surprisingly, the Australian Human Rights Commission has issues with the way terrorist organisations are proscribed - but even it doesn’t advocate eliminating the concept entirely;  it advocates improving the process and making it more rigorous and transparent. 

I think the laws need reworking, but I think we still need them.

Gregg says:

02:00pm | 14/02/12

@TimR
” Anti terror laws a fine with me. They’re not going to send any innocent people to jail, just the guilty ones who may have been found not guilty under the old laws. “
And what about how long the innocent ones were held, where and how they were held and treated?
For some blokes that may be from a region that’s been in turmoil for many years, it is not surprising that associated issues might be discussed.
And so what happened to being innocent until found guilty?

TheRealDave says:

02:02pm | 14/02/12

Why is it the only real counter argument you here is people crapping on about ‘oh they could change it so that anyone who opposes them politically is a terrorist’ kind of bollocks or words to the effect??

Its like on whim the Labor Party could declare the Liberal Party a ‘terrorist organisation’ the night before an election…..or brand all redheads terrorists and round them all up.

Fair Dinkum.

Greg says:

02:12pm | 14/02/12

marley, you have proved my point exactly.

The Attorney General (ie a politician and a member of a political party) can declare an organisation to be a terrorist organisation based upon his own opinion.

And this opinion need not be supported by any tangible fact or actual event, just a suspicion that a single member of the organisation may be “indirectly fostering a potential act of terrorism”, or even just endorses the “indirect fostering of a potential act of terrorism”.

That is sufficiently vague enough to cover just about anything.

In fact, after the Australia Day race riot in Canberra, the ALP is lucky that the Coaltion is not in government, or it could be declared a terrorist organisation, given that the violence was incited by a member of the ALP and that Julia Gillard was sufficiently terrified.

I mean Tony Hodges actually incited real violence. He didn’t just think about doing it. Why isn’t he being prosecuted for terrorism?

Greg says:

02:39pm | 14/02/12

The RealDave, if the power is there, it will eventually get used, no matter how many people it won’t.

I can still remember when people said that a Governor General would never dismiss a Prime Minister. It was only a “reserve power” after all, just a monarchical relic really, and only retained for tradition.

I can also remember the federal government banning the Franklin dam against the wishes of the Tasmanian government, despite the constitution clearly giving the state government full control over all waters and rivers within their state.

As far as politicians are concerned, anything that is even theoretically possible is an option.

marley says:

02:39pm | 14/02/12

@Greg - no, the wording, “satisfied on reasonable grounds” places a higher standard on the AG than just his personal whim.

That said, the Human Rights people would prefer to see the proscription of organisations left either to the judiciary or subject to review by an independent tribunal.  I think that would meet a lot of your concerns.

Chris L says:

02:45pm | 14/02/12

@TheRealDave - Don’t be so surprised at the thought Dave. The current government’s ISP filter plan is to have a secret blacklist of websites, chosen by government administrators, to block without even involving judicial review.

It’s not much of a stretch to then to imagine they’d enjoy the chance to outlaw any group that upsets them.

TChong says:

02:50pm | 14/02/12

marley
I think you are far too trusting.
As Greg says, these charges could be laid against anyone, anytime, and would and could be done at the behest of foreign govts. all in the name of the “war against terror”.
marley,
I could call the anti -terror hot line with a complete BS story-
That i saw you maybe speak to someone who may have been a member of Free Quebec . ( I saw their internet pic, and picked them straight away officer,) I could say
I’m pretty sure it was you, you may be able to help by answering some questions, you can stay with the authorities a day or ( a lot )more, until you remember.
You’d be cool with that ?
Nothing at all stopping such a scenario,.
Many were rouded up, subject to brutality and many died, who were completely innocent of anything during this WAT.
The militarisation of our police, and draconian laws that cant be challenged.
All to make us safe.
Eric Arthur Blair would be proud

TheRealDave says:

03:00pm | 14/02/12

@ChrisL You do know the ALP abandoned the whole filter plan and closed up the department 5 seconds AFTER the Greens said it would never back it…and that was about 18 months or so ago didn’t you? After the won the last election relying on Greens support.

Its funny how some people, and far be it from me to suggest they are coalition ‘supporters’ spruiking more ‘Fear, Uncertainty and or Doubt’ into the minds of voters - even though they know its absolute bollocks.

But aside from that….just still more ‘they could’ stuff….no, they haven’t and they won’t.

Chris L says:

03:50pm | 14/02/12

@TheRealDave - I have linked a page belonging to the Autralian Government, Department of Broadband. It was last updated October 2011 (ie. less than 18 months ago). Besides, even if they boldly said we’d “never, ever” have an ISP Filter I would still be doubtful.

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering

PS. That was the first time anyone here has accused (or strongly insinuated) that I am a “coalition ‘supporters’ spruiking more ‘Fear, Uncertainty and or Doubt’”. Very amusing

Greg says:

04:10pm | 14/02/12

marley, actually no, I wouldn’t feel any better if the judiciary or independent tribunals could declare organisations to be terrorists.

The judiciary and “independent tribunals” are appointed (and stacked) by politicians. They are only one step removed from the politicians. They are no better, and usually they are much worse because they are not subject to voter review every 3 years.

We will have to agree to disagree. I cannot share your faith in the integrity of politicians and governments. My life experience and my personal conscience will not allow it.

marley says:

04:21pm | 14/02/12

@Tchong - well, since Free Quebec isn’t a listed organization, I’m safe for the moment (whew - that’s a relief).

Look, I’m not all that trusting, but neither do I believe we can fight terror with standard policing.  If you read the Australian Human Rights Commission’s thoughts on the anti-terror laws, they identify a lot of contentious points, some of which I agree with (and a few I don’t). 

I do know that, before Canada proscribed the Tamil Tigers, an awful lot of money was flowing to one of the ugliest terrorist organisations around from the diaspora in Toronto.  The laws there cut off the supply of funds, or at least reduced them.  I think that was a very good outcome.

Anyway, here’s the link to the AHRC - it makes interesting reading.  And note, they’re not suggesting throwing out the legislation entirely.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/legal/publications/counter_terrorism_laws.html#3_3

Shane says:

06:39pm | 14/02/12

@TheRealDave,
Please read, dated 12 Jan 2012. Conroy’s filter is still on. We’re not spruiking FUD, we’re pointing out that you’re a complete idiot whose opinions are blissfully unburdened by any facts (and far be it from me to suggest that this is typical of ALP/Greens supporters)...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/internet-filter/conroy-not-dropping-internet-filter-despite-being-unlikely-to-get-anywhere/story-fn5j66db-1226251037201

Greg says:

12:24pm | 14/02/12

Erick, the author is not really concerned with freedom of speech and of thought. The author is Greg Barns, and you can find his form via google.

He can always be relied upon to take sides against Western culture and people, no matter what the issue.

If the accused were alleged “right-wing” white people, he would be agitating for harsher anti-terrorist legislation.

AdamC says:

12:37pm | 14/02/12

I agree, Erick. Greg Barns has overplayed his hand here.

I think his underlying point is that, when it comes to terrorism, the threshold at which merely considering an act becomes conspiring to commit an act is different to standard criminal laws - and maybe it shouldn’t be. Why he didn’t just say that is beyond me. Accusing Steve Bracks and Christine Nixon of undermining the presumption of innocence by quoting statements that do not such thing makes Barns look like a cheerleading apologist for extremists.

MarkS says:

01:45pm | 14/02/12

Mr Barn’s argument is based around the idea that they had not yet decided on what terrorist mission they would do. Therefore in his view they are not yet criminals.

Rather like a group of would be armed robbers, who are busy investigating how to obtain guns, explosives, casing banks etc when the police arrest them. They are decided that they will commit a crime and even what crime. They just have not decided where, when & nor do they yet have all the required equipment. Still appears to be a “conspiracy to commit” to me.

In Mr Barns world they are guilty of nothing yet as “They had not selected any target “. While I too am concerned with the guilt by association laws. Mr Barns is out on a very shaky limb with this complaint.

Greg says:

12:31pm | 14/02/12

It is not the “ancient rights” that make us vulnerable, on the contrary, our ancestors fought for these rights to protect us from oppressers.

The problem arises when people who have no appreciation or respect of our values and culture are imported into our country. Their aim appears to be to distort Western culture until it resembles the one that they wanted to leave.

St. Michael says:

01:25pm | 14/02/12

“What good are ancient rights if they make us vunerable? When our ancient rights were formulated the world was very different today.”

The presumption of innocence is actually not that old.  It’s only been around in that codified form since roughly 1800 or so, although its seed was the old Roman rule of evidence Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies.  Most significantly, it came about because of the assertion, which is surely right, that most men are not criminals.  A removal of that presumption is a slap in the face of the entire society, for it implies that most men are, in fact, criminals.

You can see the results of where the presumption is removed, both in history before it was formulated, and in dictatorships or theocracies present around the world: oppression of the people.  Show trials.  Think it can’t happen here? Germany was an advanced Western democracy before roughly 1932-1933.  Financial disaster first destroyed the economy and then assured the rise of Adolf Hitler.  And in our globalised world, financial disaster is still a disease that can strike anywhere.

“The men in question may have lost the right to presumption of innocence but the authorities have gained the right to incarcerate them pending investigation. The overall quantam of rights has not diminished.”

True, but the flow of rights is not equivalent from the State to the population.  It is the Devil’s own job to take rights back from a monarch or the State once they are given up.  Indeed it is a long and bitter contest to take those rights from the State in the first place.  It took a good 1500 years from the Battle of Hastings before English monarchs gave over most of their power to the English Parliament; it took the Poles fifty years before Russia relinquished its hold on the country and gave the power back to the people.  Or indeed observe any dictatorship held by a single madman like Gaddafi or Mugabe: rights are not given back to the populace in those cases except with the shedding of a lot of blood.

marley says:

01:56pm | 14/02/12

@St. Michael - I don’t think it took 1500 years from the Battle of Hastings for English monarch to hand over their power to Parliament - otherwise, we’d still be in a pure autocracy today.  It took 150 years for the beginning of limits on the monarch’s powers and about 600 to finish the job.

TheRealDave says:

02:07pm | 14/02/12

I thought the Batlte of Hastings was in 1066 and the Magna Carta signed in 1215…

St. Michael says:

02:34pm | 14/02/12

Appreciate the error correction, but does it really matter whether it took 750 or 1500 years to pry power off a monarch?

Does the lack of 750 years into the equation make politicians any more enthusiastic about giving up their rights or handing back the rights they grab off a population?

fitter says:

12:31pm | 14/02/12

Greg - I take it your advocating a return to the white australia policy? this will return australia to social cohesion as you put it? Racial vilification laws and the anti terrorism laws have nothing to do with each other. The basis to our system of justice is the presumption of innocence. The new legisaltion overides this, this is the point that the author is making.

Greg says:

01:07pm | 14/02/12

fitter, the cure for multiculturalist policies are assimilationist policies, or just an immigration policy that selects culturally compatible immigrants regardless of race in the first place.

Having said that, at least terrorism wasn’t a problem under the white Australis policy, so it would still be a lot better than what we currently suffer from.

Racial vilification and anti-terrorism laws have everything to do with eachother. They repress fundamental human rights of speech and association. They criminalise opinion, and create “thoughtcrime”, whereby guilt is assigned on a pre-emptive nature, even though no other tangible criminal act has occurred.

You have missed the point completely.

marley says:

02:44pm | 14/02/12

@Greg - did you know that one of the factors leading to the creation of Canada was a fear of terrorist activity by Irish-American Fenians?  It was a well-founded fear, by the way.  Sometimes, shared values, customs, even religion, aren’t enough.

TChong says:

02:56pm | 14/02/12

greg
Timothy McVeigh
Anders ( mass muder ) of fellow Norwegians
Terrorists dont have to be “foreign” to their victims.
Many can be homegrown, with their own axwes to grind

HappyCynic says:

03:59pm | 14/02/12

@Greg

Two words, Eureka Stockade.  And you think ‘terrorism’ isn’t a problem in a monocultural society?  Hmm how about ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland, the US Civil War, there are a lot of examples where ‘terrorism’ in all its guises can occur within a single culture.

You’re just hung up on one culture that seems alien to you because you think that all people are different in some way.  We’re not, all people are driven by the same impulses, the only difference is our experiences.  Also I think your rose-tinted glasses are on too tight, the past is no better and no safer than the present or the future.

Greg says:

04:03pm | 14/02/12

@marley, the Fenians were Irish nationalists, and the main driver for Irish independence from the British Empire was the difference in religion, which was central to their cultural identity.

In fact, there were times in history when all British Catholics were suspected terrorists, regardless of whether they were English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.

The point is that the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism were enough to cause conflict, despite the fact that they were all Christians. That is why the Irish wanted their own nation, where they did not have to compromise their cultural values.

So while I agree that “sometimes, shared values, customs, even religion, aren’t enough”, there are almost always a bare minimum.

@TChong, Tim McVeigh and Anders Breivik both targetted organisations that they believed were oppressing their own people and cultures. They were both responding to multiculturalist policies that were promoted by their targets.

Their primary targets were the FBI /ATF (representing the US govt) and the Norwegian Labour Party (representing the Norwegian govt) respectively.

They were not just random targets, killed for terrorist publicity reasons. They both considered themselves to be at war with their victims.

Greg says:

05:35pm | 14/02/12

HappyCynic, I never said that every single conflict throughout history was the result of inter-cultural conflict. In fact, there have been more than enough intra-cultural conflicts, without needing to exacerbate further conflict via multiculturalism.

As for your examples:

The Eureka Stockade was triggered by a tax revolt, although it did have a strong Irish versus English (Catholic vs Protestant) cultural conflict associated with it, just like the IRA in Ireland does.

The ETA in Spain is another classic multicultural conflict, where the Basque people have a different language, culture and racial background to the Spanish, and want their own sovereignty.

As for the US “Civil War”, it was another example of people with different values who wanted to separate rather than be forced together. It was not even a civil war, as the two sides were not fighting for control of a single country. The South did not want to rule over the North, they only wanted to separate from it. That is why Americans still call it “The War Between the States”.

And people are different, which is why they get classifed in cultural and racial groupings. These groupings are not driven by the same impulses either. They have different priorities in life.

That is obvious even within a single region, like Europe for example. Some cultures live in the present, and are said to “love life”. Others place more importance in planning for the future. The result is Greece and Germany.

The Greeks are probably better company at parties, but I would rather have the Germans managing my investments.

It isn’t a question of whether one culture is “better” than the other. The issue is that they don’t mix together very well.

And both the Germans and the Greeks would be better off if Greece left the EU, and could default on its debts, while the Germans did not have to continue to subsidise them.

John says:

05:56pm | 14/02/12

The western cabal want control of the EU, this why they don’t want to see their EU commie project collapse. This explains the so called privatization and bailouts of Greece. If the greece have an sense would be leave the EU, create their own currency and own central bank and vote into powerful like figure that would turn their nation into a super in three years.

marley says:

06:01pm | 14/02/12

@Greg - the Fenians has a grievance against Britain, certainly, but they didn’t fight it out in Ireland or in Britain.  Rather, they decided to take their grievances to the US and Canada, and actually tried to invade Canada on a couple of occasions, all in order to further their fight for an independent Ireland. 

Their actions had nothing at all to do with Canada, but it didn’t stop them trying to use Canada as a pawn in their process.  That’s what extremists with a singular goal do.  And the hell with the “collateral damage.”  That’s my point. 

And don’t forget, that Canada at the time had a large non-English, Catholic population whose rights had been established and recognised for a century..  To try to argue the religious issue in the Canadian context doesn’t work well at all. 

This was an Irish nationalist movement fighting in another country for it’s own aims.  Now while I’m not about to compare the Fenians of the 1860s and 1870s with modern day terrorists, the focus on a particular goal to the exclusion of lives and livelihoods of those around them is common to both.  Terrorism can as easily be home-grown as imported, can as easily be committed by people who seem to be “like us,” and we need to remember that.

Greg says:

10:37pm | 14/02/12

marley, I’m not exactly sure what the Irish-American invasion of Canada has to do with this discussion,

The Irish-Americans certainly were not culturally incompatible with other Americans, who also rebelled against the British.

I do agree that terrorists are usually not concerned with innocent bystanders and collateral damage, but then they would say the same about the governments that they fight, with some justification.

But terrorists are much more likely to be imported rather than home-grown, unless you consider home-grown to include first or second generation imports. Whilst terrorists are not concered with innocent victims, they still usually prefer not to target people who share their values.

marley says:

07:54am | 15/02/12

@Greg - but that’s just my point. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, and many of them are just like us.  They share our language, our heritage, our religion - but they have goals that allow them to ignore the things we all have in common in order to pursue objectives that we do not share.  That’s why the Fenians are an example:  a terrorist group that was “just like us” but had a different objective and couldn’t see beyond it.  You don’t have to be a bearded Muslim to be a terrorist or to hate.

Chris L says:

03:16pm | 14/02/12

Don’t give in to fear, Subotic. You’re more likely to be struck by lightning twice than die in a terrorist attack.

Greg says:

02:29pm | 14/02/12

“Guilt by association” is also known by other terms, like “prejudice”, “bias”, “discrimination” and “bigotry”. Is is the antithesis of equal treatment under the law.

The fact is that Aboriginees are disproportionately over-represented in criminal convictions, as indicated by the racial breakdown of prison populations. Does this mean that all Aboriginees should be suspected of being criminals, and that whenever a conviction occurs then all of the criminal’s family members should also be put into gaol?

As for thought crimes, they have been well established. You could get a couple of years in gaol for an assault, but if you are a white man who assaults a non-white, then you will also be charged with a hate crime, and get 5 or 6 years in gaol.

Curiously however, the same doesn’t seem to apply if the races of the victim and perpetrator are reversed.

Nick says:

03:26pm | 14/02/12

Greg… being an Aborigine is not associating with an organisation, and for you to suggest otherwise is racist in the extreme.  A law would be seriously flawed, if not unconstitutional, if it followed your logic so your arguement is hysterical at best.

Greg says:

05:08pm | 14/02/12

Nick, “guilt by association” is not necessarily restricted to an association with an organisation, it can be any association that a criminal has with others, via any type of family or cultural relationship.

And the purpose of the scenario that I outlined was to demonstrate what could be possible according to the guilt by association that you have endorsed. The constitution specifically allows the federal government to make race-based laws, regardless of whether anybody thinks them to be flawed or not.

No amount of sanctimonious name-calling can change that.

iansand says:

01:48pm | 14/02/12

The courts apply the law.  If a law is unjust they will apply an unjust law, with unjust results.

MarkS says:

02:13pm | 14/02/12

@Kassandra
“I find it hard to believe that they would lock up the wrong people unjustifiably very often”

Believe it, it happens and more often then most people have any idea about.

St. Michel says:

02:36pm | 14/02/12

“If the occasional innocent is caught up by these laws then that is no different to any other area of the criminal law.”

Unfortunately, this is rather like the old “pie in the face” joke: it stops being funny when it starts being you.  And as Martin Niemoller once noted, it starts being you rather quickly in the right circumstances.

Kassandra says:

02:54pm | 14/02/12

And how do you define an “unjust” law? One you don’t approve of? We live in a liberal democracy and a majority in two houses of an elected parliament makes the laws, not some arbitrary dictator or military elite. I am not a lawyer but I do have dealings with the courts as an expert witness from time to time and I find the courts more often than not manage to get it right. The errors in justice I have seen have been far more often in favour of defendants than against them, especially in appeals where a jury’s robust common sense verdict is found “unsafe”. I don’t doubt the decisions were legally correct but they were unjust in not holding people to account for doing very bad things which hurt other innocent people. So I think this goes both ways and I am not convinced that the anti-terrorism laws are any better or any worse in this respect than other laws.

@ MarkS: I don’t believe it, but then everyone in prison is innocent aren’t they?

iansand says:

03:44pm | 14/02/12

I think that, without the label of terrorism, most people would think that locking people up for doing nothing more than having a few conversations is unjust.

St. Michael says:

04:01pm | 14/02/12

“I don’t doubt the decisions were legally correct but they were unjust in not holding people to account for doing very bad things which hurt other innocent people.”

Your subjective view of injustice, particularly given your regrettable apprehended bias in that you had a friend killed in the Bali bombing, is eminent argument that justice should never be in the hands of the victims.

AdamC says:

04:03pm | 14/02/12

Ian Sand, yes, but the ‘label’ of terrorism cannot be separated from the laws designed to combat it. It is not at all uncommon for societies to make special laws for special circumstances or problems, often granting the authorities special powers or creating specific offences.  We already do this in areas ranging from drink and drug driving to provision of insurance broking services. Why should terrorism miss out?

St. Michael says:

04:55pm | 14/02/12

@ AdamC: “We already do this in areas ranging from drink and drug driving to provision of insurance broking services. Why should terrorism miss out?”

I suspect because “criticising the government” or “being involved in activities that could embarrass or bring down the government” is much easier to spin as “terrorism” than drink driving.

Kassandra says:

08:28am | 15/02/12

@ St Michael
Everyone is biased including you and this is one of those polarising issues. Laws dealing with areas such as terrorism (and the courts) have to balance competing biases, the idea of objectivity in the law is a convenient fiction like the idea that matter is solid. “justice should never be in the hands of the victims” sounds all very lofty but justice should not be in the hands of the accused and their advocates any more than it should be in the hands of friends and relatives of their victims. “Apprehended bias” is the beam in Mr Barns’ eye as he points to the mote in the eye of the court. My point was that there are instances of injustice in both directions, which is inevitable in a balanced system. Unlike you, I am not advocating for all the injustice to flow in one direction.

St. Michael says:

11:06am | 15/02/12

@ Kassandra:

“Unlike you, I am not advocating for all the injustice to flow in one direction.”

Then I assume you have a big problem with Jeremy Bentham’s “Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man remains behind bars?”

If so, there would appear little difference between your views and those of the men you appear to hate so much.  They, too, would rather have people behind bars because they “seemed” guilty than allow for the fact or possibility of innocence.

As I said, your reply is redolent of apprehended bias.  Had you been the mother, or daughter, or sister of someone who served 12 years or more for a crime they did not commit, you would be seeing it differently.

You also fail to acknowledge the one tipping factor in criminal cases: where a case is high profile and has the public demanding that it be solved, the temptation for prosecutors and politicians is nigh-irresistible to massage the facts in order to get a conviction and thus public acclaim.  Thatcher was guilty of this by congratulating the “Quarrymen” for framing Ali Daghir in the case of the “nuclear triggers”; the same thing happened with Andrew Mallard in that the prosecution decided not to turn over exculpatory evidence to Mallard’s defence lawyer; the same thing happened with Dr Haneef in that his case became extremely high profile and demanded a competent look to the AFP and a successful political outcome for the government.  It takes courageous judges and even more courageous prosecutors to protect our democracy in those situations.  The path you propose is one of moral cowardice.

Andrew says:

11:41am | 15/02/12

St Michael. Jeremy Bentham may not have thought that if one of those 10 guilty that went free then murdered someone he knew.

St. Michael says:

12:41pm | 15/02/12

@ Andrew: “St Michael. Jeremy Bentham may not have thought that if one of those 10 guilty that went free then murdered someone he knew.”

Absent extreme cases like unrepentant—and, it must be noted, lawfully convicted—paedophiles, we don’t lock people up because they have predispositions towards violence.  That is what you’re really asking for here.  I don’t think you quite realise the poison your words contain.

We lock people up for crimes they commit which can be proved beyond reasonable doubt—the only acceptable standard of proof—whilst observing the rules in favour of an accused so we don’t wind up putting an innocent man behind bars.  You are making exactly the same error as I mentioned further up the thread: implying that most men are guilty of a crime is slapping society in the face since the presumption of innocence represents the principle that most men are not actually criminals.

Once again: you are not seeing the vast array of political convictions and fraudulent prosecutors who became so fixated on putting a person behind bars they threw out compliance with the law.  That makes them morally as bad as those they thought were guilty of crimes.  In Mallard’s case, the investigating officers “knew” Mallard was guilty (in spite of the fact that several officers in their unit did not).  Their “knowing” Mallard was guilty caused them to hide exculpatory evidence from the defence.  By doing so, just as you implicitly are, they usurped the judgment of the only body that is empowered to declare a man guilty or not guilty: a judge and jury.

People who scream for courts to convict in spite of little “technicalities” like police beatings to obtain convictions are also ignoring an old moral principle which, to be fair to them, is much-ignored in our society today: two wrongs still don’t make a right.

Kassandra says:

12:48pm | 15/02/12

@ St Michel
You are making my case for me. You are one of those people for whom the world is black and white. People are innocent or guilty, laws are just or unjust, politicians and officials are either morally courageous or cowardly. Piffle. I never met a person yet who was completely innocent or completely guilty. The difference between us is that while I am aware of my biases you are completely blind to your own. What you see as moral courage is merely an unswerving belief in the self-evident truth of your own views.

Kassandra says:

01:38pm | 15/02/12

“We don’t lock people up because they have predispositions towards violence.”

Yes we do. Every day. Visit any psychiatric unit in the country on any day of the week and you’ll see them. You want to tackle an unjust law try that one.

St. Michael says:

02:05pm | 15/02/12

@ Kassandra: “What you see as moral courage is merely an unswerving belief in the self-evident truth of your own views.”

The reason it’s morally courageous is because it dares to believe that the justice system as presently formulated is a pretty good model that ensures, to the best of its ability, that an innocent goes to jail.  I hold that principle higher than your moral cowardice, which is basically “it’s okay if a few innocent people wind up doing 20 years for crimes they didn’t commit, because the system is flawed.”  You should have more faith in humanity and more moral courage than to hold that view.

“Visit any psychiatric unit in the country on any day of the week and you’ll see them. You want to tackle an unjust law try that one.”

Nice try, but fail.  That’s medical treatment, not prison.  You missed the protections in the criminal legal system you despise so much so that those detentions are not permanent and not arbitrary.  And invariably they don’t take place without a good reason.  To clarify my earlier point: it is not a crime to be mentally ill, nor is it a crime to be predisposed to violence.  A term of imprisonment is for a crime, not for a tendency.

Feel free to try for another “gotcha” moment, seeing as that’s all you got left.

St. Michael says:

02:07pm | 15/02/12

Also, P.S.:

“I never met a person yet who was completely innocent or completely guilty.”

Then every person ever accused of a given crime was in some way guilty of it, were they?

Is that really your logic here?

Kassandra says:

03:13pm | 15/02/12

Hang on. I’ve been defending the system we have, you are the one that was attacking it. Now you accuse me of “hating it” and “despising” it? You have tried to reverse our positions! You are also contradicting yourself all over the place. Read back over your thread.

Re psychiatric patients. The point is that unlike the criminal law the mental health laws allow preventive detention, often in people with no demonstrable mental illness and no record of violence. Merely a “risk” of it. I thought that was what worried you about the terrorism laws.

St. Michael says:

03:42pm | 15/02/12

“Hang on. I’ve been defending the system we have, you are the one that was attacking it.”

Let’s look at what you said further up the thread, then:

“Unlike you, I am not advocating for all the injustice to flow in one direction.”

That is, it appears you would feel better if injustice were done to accused as well as the victims, as you seem to be implying.

The point of criminal legal proceedings is to ensure that injustice is not done to an accused person.  Not the other way.  That is the whole point of the presumption of innocence and Bentham’s exhortation that it’s better ten guilty men be released than one innocent man be imprisoned.  Saying you’re happy with the anti-terrorism laws in their present form is you approving of putting those principles under attack.

“The point is that unlike the criminal law the mental health laws allow preventive detention, often in people with no demonstrable mental illness and no record of violence. Merely a “risk” of it. I thought that was what worried you about the terrorism laws.”

The difference being that the person making the decision is usually a doctor with no interest in the outcome.  In terrorist cases, it’s invariably a police officer, a prosecutor, or a politician—as all attorneys-general are—who is making the decision about whether there is a “risk”.  In these cases the person making the decision is not disinterested in the outcome.

Mental health laws are difficult to pervert to political causes mostly because they require a doctor’s objective medical opinion in most cases.  Terrorism laws are not the same, because the word “terrorist” is itself open to definition depending on who’s in power.  And terrorist laws, worldwide, have a nasty tendency to morph into the type of laws that we would in this country call “oppressive” or “tools of a police state”.  Former British colonies in Africa are famous for it: when the British pulled out, they usually left behind “emergency powers” legislation that was then jumped on by the dictatorships that took over as a “legal” justification for detention without charge and removal of the right to silence—which was theoretically allowed by that legislation, but was passed with an entirely different intent to that which it was used for.

Even Britan itself was guilty of this—Google or read Geoffrey Robertson’s “The Justice Game” about an incident called the “ABC trial”, where draconian legislation that reversed the presumption of innocence—the legislation used to convict the Atom Spies—was used against a journalist because the government body the subject of his inquiries was embarrassed by his discoveries and his capacity to put things together from disparate press briefings.

Not one politician or prosecutor said peep about this prosecution of a member of the fourth estate, the press which is essential to any democracy.  It took an ear-bashing from the High Court judge presiding over the trial, Mars-Jones J., to demand the prosecution discontinue that charge because the legislation was being misused—and Mars-Jones was widely seen as a pro-prosecution judge, which gives you a taste of how contrary to public policy the judiciary viewed the prosecution.

St. Michael says:

03:45pm | 15/02/12

P.S.  Hmm.  In my earlier post I said the justice system is a “pretty good model that ensures, to the best of its ability, that an innocent goes to jail.”  That should have read “an innocent does not go to jail.”

Kassandra says:

03:14pm | 16/02/12

Volume of words does not equal weight of argument. You persist in misconstruing my position so I will spell it out. I support our system and I have a pretty good knowledge of its history. It is impossible to have a system of justice that does not result in injustice at times. That is a fact of life when you are dealing with imperfect human beings. I pointed out this can happen both ways, and from what I have seen it favours the accused more than the accusers, but contrary to your assertions I have no problem with that - we need a balance and it is right that it should err on the side of liberty. Nevertheless I think I understand why we have the anti-terrorism laws that we do given the potentially terrible consequences of terrorism, which by definition is perpetrated on innocent civilians, and the difficulties in preventing it, and I have no problem with it. I don’t believe it is likely to be abused in this country for political purposes any more than our mental health laws, which you seem to have no problem with and which have been grossly abused in some other countries to persecute political dissidents.

Wynston Cruso says:

02:51pm | 14/02/12

Actively conspiring to commit a criminal act is a crime, whoda thunk it huh? I am utterly astounded at your persistent and borderline crazy attempts at defending the likes of these ‘Australians’. If you don’t like your own kind so much then do these poor people you sympathise so much with a favour and disappear.

Kassandra says:

03:03pm | 14/02/12

If you need to ask what the connection is Marilyn then I don’t think you will understand the answer. The only “paranoic (sic) ramblings and rantings” I have seen so far in this thread are yours.

Chris L says:

03:32pm | 14/02/12

Dr Haneef is secretly a supervillian with the capability of detonating buildings in other countries through the power of his magical sim card.

Nassir Mottiph says:

03:56pm | 14/02/12

It appears that Wynston and Kassandra have succumbed to the fearmongering that is part of the coalition rhetoric.

Well said Marilyn, thank-you.

Al says:

04:32pm | 14/02/12

I’m not paranoid about a terorist attack.
I AM paranoid about the fact that governments (including our own) want to restrict us, control what information we can access (no matter what we plan to use it for) and make sure we have little recourse to resist what they want to implement if we disagree.

Andrew says:

11:47am | 15/02/12

Me, Im not paranid about anything at all, LMAO, funniest line Ive heard all year.

Andrew says:

12:07pm | 15/02/12

By the way Marilyn wer you so indignant when bolt were found guilty for his opinions and thoughts.

St. Michael says:

09:40pm | 14/02/12

I have no idea what you just said, but “clap-happy” is a cool word.  Sort of makes me think of an optimist with a STD. :D

A Dose of Reality says:

07:54am | 15/02/12

Actually, ‘dinkum Aussies’ will be dismayed that the ‘fair go’ is done away with.

‘Dinkum Aussies’ will be puzzled as to why a population simply ‘does what it is told’, without any question, simply because those (dishonest) mugs in authority tell them to.

“Dinkum Aussies’ will look at their neighbours and wonder just when was it that the country turned into a load of sooky la-la’s scared of their own shadow.

“Dinkum Aussies’ will look to the legends of Gallipoli, Villers Bretonneux, the Rats, Long Tan, Kakoda ……. and wonder how such a scared, insipid, cowering society bred such heroes

AdamC says:

08:23am | 15/02/12

Peter, of course there are many other laws that present equal, if not greater, threats to civil liberties. The reason the like of Greg Barns are not interested in these laws is because they are less likely to affect their pet victim minorities, of which muslims seem to be number one on the hit parade. When Barns mused, during the doco last night, that his client was really being prosecuted for what he thought and said, and that this was a violation of his basic freedoms, I wondered what Barns had said about the Bolt decision.

So I checked. Hypocrisy much? (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3035386.html)

Aside from which, I don’t believe you can equate consorting wih people planning terrorist attacks with mere speech or thought. Even if Barns’ client, as last night’s doco contended, was somewhat reluctant participant in festivities, that does not mean he should be able to evade sanction for his conduct. Not to mention, given the very one-sided nature of the program, I couldn’t help but wonder how much the producers were omitting from their reporting of the prosecution’s case.

David says:

02:15pm | 16/04/12

You serious? HA. Let’s just lock EVERYONE up right?... then there will be NO crime RIGHT?? You sir, are a tool… Open your eyes. Not only is that not the point of this article, but that view you carry with you is the view that will see the end of democracy. People make mistakes, youths’ who have rough upbringing’s yet manage to become a valuable member of society by their late 20’s. These are the cases that need consideration not just to be sorted into the ‘criminal’ basket and locked up. THAT is justice, THAT is why we have democracy. Once an offender is locked up they are intergrated into the criminal system not only the legal side, but being locked up with other criminals only inflames their disposition to criminal activity. This is a basic psycological fact know worldwide yet completely forgotten by pig-headed online opinionists like yourself.
“Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man”
THAT is truth.