Trampling human rights

New terrorism laws should adhere to human rights principles. John von Doussa QC

Extreme Changes Kate Ellis MP not punishing people Senator Despoja responsive politicians PC How To: Antonios Symeonakis People need practical help Senator Linda Kirk For the benefit of all Australians Senator Grant Chapman

Trampling human rights

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle

The Howard Government and State Labor governments are cooperating to overturn fundamental human rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
The Greens around the country are standing up in parliament and in the community to defend civil liberties.
Since September 11 governments around the world, including Australia, have rushed to increase the powers of police and security agencies.
The right to a fair trial, the right to be considered innocent before proven guilty, the right to silence and protection from detention without charge are all under threat.
Each terrorist attack has been used to justify further erosion of our rights.
Like law and order auctions during state elections, the major parties compete to be seen to be tough on terrorism. When Howard announced plans to allow home detention of those deemed to be a security risk, Beazley called for the locking down of whole suburbs.
National security and the threat of terrorism have been used as a justification for an enormous transfer of power from the people and the parliament to executive government.
The extent to which security agencies and governments are willing to use national security to suppress political dissent was illustrated in the recent detention and deportation of American peace activist Scott Parkin. Scott, a campaigner against the action of US Vice-President Dick Cheny’s former company Halliburton, was given an adverse security assessment by ASIO and arrested by police. The assessment was seemingly because of his participation in the recent Forbes demonstrations that questioned corporate power.
Since 2002 the government and security agencies have gained the power to list and ban organisations, prosecute people for being a member or supporter of a banned organisation, and freeze the finances of those organisations and individuals listed by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.
ASIO can detain innocent people without trial for up to a week merely on the suspicion they may have information about terrorism. Refusing to answer questions or telling anyone about your detention could lead to a prison sentence of up to five years.
National Security Information laws allow evidence used in certain criminal and civil proceedings to be suppressed or given in secret.
For example, Scott Parkin’s lawyers may not see evidence against him without applying for a security clearance, because evidence could be edited or suppressed by the presiding judge who in deciding to do so is required to give greatest weight to national security. Part or all of Scott’s court case could be held in secret.
All these laws are built on a very broad definition of terrorism which would have ensnared Nelson Mandela’s ANC or the East Timorese resistance. As one official told a Senate hearing in 2002 the definition of terrorism would include people who protested at the Woomera detention centre.

These laws have and will continue to be used against the Arab and Muslim community, but everyone in Australia is under threat from unaccountable power.
Despite widespread criticism by community leaders, legal organisations and the government’s own backbench of existing, laws the Howard government is now planning a new round of changes.
On September 27 at a meeting of State Premiers and the Howard government further laws were announced which go even further than the draconian powers already in place.
The plan includes: detention without trial for at least two weeks (and perhaps up to three months) by Australian Federal Police; house arrest for up to a year and extensive new police powers to stop and search anyone in designated public places.
The use of the laws will not require evidence of guilt; they will target those who might be considered to be a risk on the balance of probabilities, rather than the normal standard of the criminal law.
Freedom to criticise government polices and express views contrary to the government will be further suppressed with new definitions of incitement and sedition. For example, people in the community who express a view that the actions of Iraqis violently resisting the US military occupation of Iraq are legitimate will be breaking the law.
The Howard government and Labor Premiers will try and push through these new laws before Christmas. It is important that we express our opposition to their plans now.
The war on terrorism is an idea that is being used to justify attacks on democracy that go far beyond the problem of specific terrorist attacks.
As the conflict in Northern Ireland showed, only when we address the real cause of conflicts in the Middle East and the sources of anger amongst young men in Indonesia will the issues of terrorism be resolved.
The illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has fostered terrorism and a withdrawal of the US would be a good first step in addressing the problem.
The Greens will continue to lead the campaign to defend our democracy from the terrorism laws and focus the debate on the root causes of terrorism.