Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

New security laws will not end the world as we know it

By Neil James - posted Friday, 21 October 2005

The quickest way to get trampled in public debate at present is to stand between a professed civil libertarian and the opportunity a microphone presents for knee-jerk criticism. A close second, of course, would be to stand between any rostrum and a politician seeking to scare up some votes, either for or against increased security measures, by appealing to sectional prejudices or suspicions.

A recent example is posturing by ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope (and others) as to the minor detail of draft counter-terrorism legislation, thoroughly approved in principle and general thrust, at the last Council of Australian Governments meeting. This is, by the way, the same professed civil libertarian Jon Stanhope who is comfortable with the electronic tagging or indefinite detention of all serious sex offenders, after they have completed their sentence, but apparently unhappy with preventative detention or control orders in a minute number of cases of terrorism.

But he is not alone in his inconsistencies or seeming unwillingness to acknowledge that our national circumstances have changed significantly. The fundamental point in the counter-terrorism measures versus civil liberties debate is the question whether Australia’s pluralist liberal-democratic society is under attack from Islamist terrorism or not?


If the answer is yes, as most Australians appear to recognise, then much more restraint is needed in media coverage in particular and public debate in general. There should be no more wild claims or thoughtless scaremongering that our civil liberties in general are seriously threatened by what are, in reality, quite narrowly targeted counter-terrorism measures featuring numerous checks and balances.

Several High Court judgments during both World Wars established that the relevant constitutional heads of power governing national security wax and wane depending on the threat. Too many forget this principle and its application to the current heightened, long-term and complex threat from Islamist terrorism.

The ahistoric approach of many critics of the counter-terrorism measures is especially disappointing. Australian history includes many examples where the end of the world was forecast if certain security or criminal justice measures were or were not adopted. Almost invariably the prophesies of doom were disproved and Aussie commonsense and tolerance won out.

Debates about balancing free speech and security have occurred before, during previous threats from the 1920s onwards, with only the labels of the extremists being different. Australia has faced down internal threats of varying degrees from anarchists, wobblies, fascists, various kinds of communists and a range of separatist-supporting émigré groups.

Australia will successfully face down Islamist terrorism and we will do so much quicker if we remain cool headed. Over-reaction on all sides must be avoided and the debate must be grounded in facts, not opinion and wild allegation.

Some of the new measures are undoubtedly tough by normal peacetime standards - which no longer necessarily apply. But they are not unprecedented during time of conflict and in coping with associated acts of subversion, sabotage, sedition and treason.


The measures will also only affect very small numbers of people in most unusual circumstances of their own choosing. A key point is that the new measures are specifically targeted only at terrorists and their committed and active sympathisers - a very small, distinct and readily distinguishable segment of the population.

Most Australians strongly support this approach because they clearly realise this fact. The reason the Islamist extremists targeted by the measures (and some of their apologists) claim otherwise is because they realise it too.

Despite the fibs and alarmist rumours being peddled, and the sheer historical or contextual ignorance often displayed, legitimate peaceful dissent will be unaffected. Acts such as criticising government foreign policy, staging a protest march or writing subjective letters to the editor will remain just as legal as they are now.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published in the ADA quarterly national journal, Defender, Spring 2005 where a longer version can be found.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

18 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Neil James is the executive director of the Australia Defence Association, an independent, non-partisan public interest guardian organisation on national security issues.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Neil James

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Neil James
Article Tools
Comment 18 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy