Black reaction
Any good conservative knows that things have to change in order to stay the same...and peaceful. A bad reactionary operates on ideology, arrogance and ultimately hubris. Their destruction is guaranteed. Black reaction to...well, black reaction.
MANSELL SEES AUSTRALIAN ANTI TERROR LAWS BEING USED TO QUELL
ABORIGINAL PROTESTS - 8th November 2005 Michael Mansell
Aboriginal lawyer and activist Michael Mansell believes Aboriginal protestors will be targeted by the new anti terror laws as a new way to discredit Aboriginal leaders. "This is even clearer after the the so-called "counter terrorist" stage-managed media stunts in Melbourne and Sydney last night. The arrests were little more than an attempt to justify the rapid passing of anti-terror laws", he added.
Mr Mansell said "The specific reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in section 23CA (4) (a) of the Criminal Code (Anti-terrorism Act) makes it clear that the indigenous peoples will be targeted by the new anti-terror laws. Otherwise, why refer to us at all?
The new federal laws will override existing State and Territory laws, rules and protocols that evolved from the Deaths in Custody Royal Commission. These required police to initiate contact either with an Aboriginal legal service or a friend whenever an Aboriginal person is taken into custody. Now no-one will be contacted unless the Aboriginal detainee requests it, absolving police responsibility to have a representative present to ensure fairness.
In the case of Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders, police must take that person before a "judicial officer" within two hours- s.23CA (4)(a). However the clock does not start running until the person is in a place where there are "facilities"-s.23CA 8 (a). In the case of the Torres Strait or a remote Aboriginal community, police can legitimately harass or use oppressive and overbearing tactics to extract a confession in however many hours it takes to get a detainee to "facilities".
The "judicial officer" can be a JP chosen by the prosecution. Most lawyers' experience is that JPs are putty in the hands of prosecutors when it comes to ordinary bail applications. If police oppose bail, JPs rarely grant bail.
Police can refuse access to a lawyer of the person's choice on the ground that lawyer may be a security risk, and police can recommend their own lawyer.
Even when a lawyer is present, police can sit in on any discussion, and thereby the new law erases the common law right of legal professional privilege that attaches to information provided by a client to their lawyer, and advice given on the basis of it.
The new laws are more about perceptions and innuendo than stopping violence against the public. The laws are more likely to harm a detainee's reputation and put the public in fear than stop terrorism.
The expansion of the definitions of Sedition and Terrorist Organisations go as close as is realistically possible to outlawing thoughts of dissent. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It will be more difficult for citizens to oppose American (and likewise Australian) foreign policy under these laws.
An organisation can be listed as "terrorist" for stating publicly that "the 9/11 bombings in the US was a case of Americans getting a taste of their own medicine". Such expression is outlawed by s.102.1 (2), even although neither the person whom spoke the words nor their organization has lifted a finger to assist anyone.
Dissenting opinions about the World Trade Centre event may be distasteful to some; but the right to express a different view has never been so challenged.
Aborigines travelling overseas to conferences with indigenous peoples elsewhere may now be prohibited from even talking to other delegates. If the Australian government lists an overseas group as "terrorist", and the Aboriginal delegate is aware of the listing, talking twice to representatives of the listed group can bring 7 years gaol -s.80.2 (7).
This could apply to the Kanaks from New Caledonia who are fighting for independence from France, or the Mohawks from Canada who fought against the Canadian government and army to preserve their traditional lands from being made a golf course.
While sedition charges allow for criticism of policy in good faith, the onus is on a defendant to prove it- s.80.3 (1) (e) end note. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy and the Aboriginal Provisional Government, both of which publicly challenge the legitimacy claims to sovereignty by the Australian Government, could find themselves charged under the sedition laws.
An Aboriginal leader accused under these laws could so easily be discredited as a consequence, even where their actions have legitimately been to promote the rights of their people. People's lives can be destroyed in more ways than with a gun.
The Howard/Ruddock/Beazley troika has become the thought police, and police are now expected to act against political views rather than criminal activity. In one fell swoop, the troika has changed the face of law enforcement in Australia forever.
These laws go well beyond any required to prevent organised violence in Australia.
The new laws attack freedom of expression by intimidation and suggestion. The policy underlining the new legal regime is to kill dissent. There is even a section that provides, George Orwell-like, for re-programming -s. 104.4 (3)(l)."
MANSELL SEES AUSTRALIAN ANTI TERROR LAWS BEING USED TO QUELL
ABORIGINAL PROTESTS - 8th November 2005 Michael Mansell
Aboriginal lawyer and activist Michael Mansell believes Aboriginal protestors will be targeted by the new anti terror laws as a new way to discredit Aboriginal leaders. "This is even clearer after the the so-called "counter terrorist" stage-managed media stunts in Melbourne and Sydney last night. The arrests were little more than an attempt to justify the rapid passing of anti-terror laws", he added.
Mr Mansell said "The specific reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in section 23CA (4) (a) of the Criminal Code (Anti-terrorism Act) makes it clear that the indigenous peoples will be targeted by the new anti-terror laws. Otherwise, why refer to us at all?
The new federal laws will override existing State and Territory laws, rules and protocols that evolved from the Deaths in Custody Royal Commission. These required police to initiate contact either with an Aboriginal legal service or a friend whenever an Aboriginal person is taken into custody. Now no-one will be contacted unless the Aboriginal detainee requests it, absolving police responsibility to have a representative present to ensure fairness.
In the case of Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders, police must take that person before a "judicial officer" within two hours- s.23CA (4)(a). However the clock does not start running until the person is in a place where there are "facilities"-s.23CA 8 (a). In the case of the Torres Strait or a remote Aboriginal community, police can legitimately harass or use oppressive and overbearing tactics to extract a confession in however many hours it takes to get a detainee to "facilities".
The "judicial officer" can be a JP chosen by the prosecution. Most lawyers' experience is that JPs are putty in the hands of prosecutors when it comes to ordinary bail applications. If police oppose bail, JPs rarely grant bail.
Police can refuse access to a lawyer of the person's choice on the ground that lawyer may be a security risk, and police can recommend their own lawyer.
Even when a lawyer is present, police can sit in on any discussion, and thereby the new law erases the common law right of legal professional privilege that attaches to information provided by a client to their lawyer, and advice given on the basis of it.
The new laws are more about perceptions and innuendo than stopping violence against the public. The laws are more likely to harm a detainee's reputation and put the public in fear than stop terrorism.
The expansion of the definitions of Sedition and Terrorist Organisations go as close as is realistically possible to outlawing thoughts of dissent. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It will be more difficult for citizens to oppose American (and likewise Australian) foreign policy under these laws.
An organisation can be listed as "terrorist" for stating publicly that "the 9/11 bombings in the US was a case of Americans getting a taste of their own medicine". Such expression is outlawed by s.102.1 (2), even although neither the person whom spoke the words nor their organization has lifted a finger to assist anyone.
Dissenting opinions about the World Trade Centre event may be distasteful to some; but the right to express a different view has never been so challenged.
Aborigines travelling overseas to conferences with indigenous peoples elsewhere may now be prohibited from even talking to other delegates. If the Australian government lists an overseas group as "terrorist", and the Aboriginal delegate is aware of the listing, talking twice to representatives of the listed group can bring 7 years gaol -s.80.2 (7).
This could apply to the Kanaks from New Caledonia who are fighting for independence from France, or the Mohawks from Canada who fought against the Canadian government and army to preserve their traditional lands from being made a golf course.
While sedition charges allow for criticism of policy in good faith, the onus is on a defendant to prove it- s.80.3 (1) (e) end note. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy and the Aboriginal Provisional Government, both of which publicly challenge the legitimacy claims to sovereignty by the Australian Government, could find themselves charged under the sedition laws.
An Aboriginal leader accused under these laws could so easily be discredited as a consequence, even where their actions have legitimately been to promote the rights of their people. People's lives can be destroyed in more ways than with a gun.
The Howard/Ruddock/Beazley troika has become the thought police, and police are now expected to act against political views rather than criminal activity. In one fell swoop, the troika has changed the face of law enforcement in Australia forever.
These laws go well beyond any required to prevent organised violence in Australia.
The new laws attack freedom of expression by intimidation and suggestion. The policy underlining the new legal regime is to kill dissent. There is even a section that provides, George Orwell-like, for re-programming -s. 104.4 (3)(l)."
posted by professor rat at 8:06 PM
<< Home