|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Anti-Terror Laws Raise Alarm in Australia |
| [Opinion] When all is said and done, will citizens actually feel any more secure? |
|
Tessa Morris-Suzuki (Tessa)  |
 Email Article
 Print Article
|
|
|
|
Published 2005-09-13 16:05 (KST) |
|
|
|
On Sept. 9, two days before the fourth anniversary of 9/11, the Australian government unveiled its latest set of proposed anti-terrorism measures. These proposals, prompted by the July terror attacks on the London public transport system, involve a substantial list of increased state powers.
Enforcement agencies will be able to keep suspect individuals under tight surveillance for up to a year by (among other things) forcing them to wear tracking devices. It will be possible to detain suspects for longer than ever -- up to two weeks -- without charge. A new crime of "indirect incitement" to terrorism will be created. There are suggestions that people with dual nationality who violate this law may be stripped of their Australian citizenship and deported.
Human rights groups have raised serious concerns about the impact of these measures. In response, the government emphasizes that in this day and age it is regrettably necessary to "balance" human rights against the need for greater national security and personal protection.
Similar things were said when the Australian government introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Suppression of Terrorist Bombings) Act 2002, the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Act 2002, the Criminal Code Amendment (Offences Against Australians) Act 2002, the Border Security Legislation Amendment Act 2002, the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism Act) 2003, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Act 2004, the Anti-Terrorism Act 2004, the National Security Information Legislation Amendment Act 2005... and the list goes on. The "balance" keeps shifting inexorably away from human rights.
But towards what? Most Australians know little about the content of such laws. Few, it may fairly be said, feel more secure or protected today than they did before any of these measures was introduced.
After 9/11, experts around the world repeatedly emphasized that responses to terrorism must involve two strands. The first is a security response: stricter surveillance of airports and other likely terrorist targets, increased information gathering about likely terrorist groups etc. The second is the long-term response, tackling the root causes of terrorism.
This second response is in turn two-fold. It requires well thought-out, well-funded schemes to address the social malaise that nurtures "home-grown" terrorists: particularly high unemployment, low opportunity and alienation in certain ethnic minority communities.
It also demands a willingness to debate imaginative and constructive alternatives to the current Middle Eastern policy of the U.S. and its allies: a policy manifestly based on flawed intelligence, and manifestly failing to achieve most of its stated aims. These long-term responses are of course the really difficult ones, the one that require true courage and leadership.
Governments in developed countries, including Australia, have been quick to come up with security responses to terrorism, but are much more reluctant to take the difficult steps necessary to tackle the long-term, root-cause side of the agenda.
Tightening security is a necessary response to increased risks of terrorism. But beyond a certain point, an endless focus on the security side of the equation (the ceaseless creation of new categories of crime, increasing of punishments etc.) produces diminishing marginal returns at best, and at worst becomes increasingly counter-productive.
Defining new forms of "incitement," expanding police powers to detain suspects, and allowing governments to strip militant immigrants of their citizenship: these are all measures which are quick to introduce, cost little money, achieve extensive media coverage, and enable governments to reassure an anxious public that they are "being tough on terrorism."
They are, in this sense, the soft option. They allow political leaders to appear to be "doing something" about the problem, while yet again postponing the more difficult confrontation with the root causes of terrorism.
There is little reason to think that these measures will work. In an age of global communications for example, domestic laws to prevent "indirect incitement" to terrorism are likely to have little impact on the minds of militants, and may simply intensify feelings of alienation and anger, particularly if they appear to be directed at particular ethnic or religious communities.
Al Qaida and its allies, of course, wish to expose democracy for the sham they believe it to be. They are doubtless delighted to see the steady erosion of free speech and human rights, and the increasing marginalization of Islamic communities in developed countries. Every retreat of the front-line defenses of free speech and human rights is an advance for their own brand of bigotry and totalitarianism. "Standing firm against terrorism" requires a determination to deny them that satisfaction.
On Sept. 9, announcing his latest proposals for anti-terrorist measures, Prime Minister John Howard assured the Australian public that these would not be used to silence legitimate political debate. It was, he said, absurd to suggest that the planned laws would create a quasi-police state. Of course, he insisted, people would still be allowed to criticize such things as the presence of Australian troops in Iraq, just as long as they did not advocate terrorist violence.
The following day, his Attorney General, Phillip Ruddock, announced the arrest, pending deportation under already existing security laws, of U.S. peace activist Scott Parkin. According to those who know him, Parkin's only crime was to criticize the Bush administration and to take part in an anti-globalization demonstration in Sydney.
Perhaps the Australian government knows something about Parkin that others do not. But if so, it is keeping this knowledge to itself. Since Parkin's arrest and deportation is a matter of "national security," the Attorney General has no legal obligation, now or ever, to explain his actions, and he has refused to inform Parkin or the Australian public of the offense for which the American is being deported.
How many more unexplained arrests and deportations will take place under expanded anti-terrorism laws? How many more anti-terrorism laws will be passed before the state is satisfied that it has got the "balance" right? How many civil liberties will remain intact when this process is over?
And, when all is said and done, will Australians actually feel any more secure?
|
|
 |
|
| Tessa Morris-Suzuki is editor of the online journal Asiarights. |
|
|
©2005 OhmyNews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
How worried are you about the H1N1 influenza virus? |
|
 |
| * Vote to see the result. |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
Del.icio.us
Digg 
reddit
Y! MyWeb
Comments Note: Kindly refrain from personal attacks and profanity.
.jpg)
