Perspective on anti-terror laws

Alas, today there is no Opposition Leader of Evatt’s stature or principle; just the pathetic figure of Kim Beazley, who states he would pass these laws even without the few softening amendments he has timidly proposed. His own Caucus, to its credit, promptly repudiated him. Only the variable mettle of the premiers and chief ministers, and perhaps the rigid legalism of the High Court, stand between us and the enactment of laws more appropriate to the old USSR, Nazi Germany or today’s China than to a liberal democracy.

For decades, maybe centuries, we have had laws that make murder, assault and the rest of the terrorist’s repertoire criminal offences. It is also an offence to conspire to commit such crimes, or to incite others to commit them. While such laws may need updating from time to time to take account of social and technological change, this does not translate into a licence to overthrow the underlying principles of our system: imprisonment only after an open trial, a presumption of innocence, freedom of belief and expression.

There is one final point, in its way more telling than any other. Those who perpetrate terrorist acts usually subscribe to some form of violent and intolerant ideology, be it social, religious or political. They are the ultimate authoritarians, using violence and death to impose their ideology on us all. But if we ourselves use authoritarian methods to defend our liberal way of life, then we are already defeated.

Addendum

One of the problems in writing in this area at present is the speed at which developments are occurring.

Since I sent my original piece on the broad anti-terror laws to On Line Opinion, the Government has rushed a fresh piece of legislation through the Parliament. In support of this action, the Prime Minister said:

The Government has received specific intelligence and police information this week which gives cause for serious concern about a potential terrorist threat. The detail of this intelligence has been provided to the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Minister for Homeland Security.

A good summary of this urgent law and the background to it can be found in the Bills Digest (pdf file 320KB) independently prepared by the Parliamentary Library.

Though some have suggested that this legislation was a diversion or beat-up to distract attention from Industrial Relations issues or to get support for the broader Bill, which I have discussed earlier in this article, I am willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt.

But, given that the new legislation was urgent and based on specific intelligence advice, I would expect to hear of prompt action taken under it which defuses the specific threat mentioned by the Prime Minister. Failing this, the diversion and beat-up interpretation must gain ground, and one’s faith in the integrity of the Government’s management of allegedly specific threats would then be severely shaken.

Remember the boy who cried “wolf”.