open and accountable government
The Federal Government has announced that it intends to introduce legislation concerning new “anti-terror” laws on Cup Day and force an immediate debate, with the result that the parliament will have 10 minutes to review the final form of the legislation rather than the customary two weeks.
Of course what it also does is prevents the public from knowing exactly what is proposed before the laws are passed and prevents any discussion of the issues in the media which might, depending on the reaction, force some changes to the bill (particularly the shoot to kill and sedition provisions which have been particularly unpopular). This is in relation to a bill which has only been released in draft form for public comment because ACT chief minister published the confidential draft on his website. And that draft no longer reflects the current state of the bill.
It is somewhat fitting that substantial legislation which sees fit to curtail at least some of our democratic freedoms is being introduced with a bare nod to principles of democratic parliamentary law making. I fully expect to see the IR bill introducted on 23 December or similar.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
And your problem with absolute power corrupting absolutely is……..?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
I hear that Clause 666 is most interseting.
November 13th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
This is quite well put, and it is agreed that the federal government has certainly curtailed our freedoms by eviscerating habeas corpus, which is one of the longest-standing Anglo-Saxon safeguards against tyranny.
Yet it is not quite clear if this blog is a consistent advocate of civil liberties, and especially the sacrosanct right to free speech, when it has been a supporter of religious vilification laws. It is not clear how criminalising “hate” can be squared with “protecting civil liberties”.
November 14th, 2005 at 12:57 am
I think there are logical limits to civil liberties.
If, for example, you were to throw the doona/duvet over me and fart…..then I would like to restrict your civil liberty to do that, though you may protest.
However, in the unlikely event that you wish to be on the receiving end of such a gas attack, then you could possibly negotiate something on an individual basis.
Civil liberties are complex issues…
November 15th, 2005 at 3:42 am
That already exists as an offence - it’s called assault.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:53 am
Steve, assuming you value freedom of religion, I’d ask you this: how real is “freedom” of religion when you can be vilified for practising that religion?
I think it’s quite clear that criminalising “hate” can sometimes be squared with “protecting civil liberties” - similarly to the above question, I’d ask: how real is a black man’s right to walk down the street in a town where the KKK is well-established?
For every “right” there is always a competing “right” - usually many.
November 15th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Irrelevant - people get vilified all the time, for their politics, for their wealth, and their actions. The only possible way you have a “right” not to be vilified (defined as the incitement of “hate”) is if you have a “right” not to be hated by others. There is no such enforceable right in the absence of a totalitarian government.
Here is a question for anti-vilification luvvies - do you believe that anti-vilification laws should be applied on the basis of politics or wealth? (I do on consistency grounds - you should not have the right to incite hatred against rich people - unless we are to abolish all anti-vilification, and indeed anti-discrimination, laws)
November 16th, 2005 at 7:50 am
Steve, I’ve spent a lot of time contributing to this debate, and a post as patronising as that does not make me feel it’s worth my time responding in any great depth. If you’re interested in the debat, then sure I’ll respond - but I’m not going to enter into yet another one of these Christian debates that feel more like a competition than a conversation.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:50 am
I have also spent a lot of time contributing to the debate (for example this particular article of mine was used as a briefing paper by the NSW Government…before they rejected these fascist laws! - see here: http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/autumn05/autumn05-6.htm), but I don’t see how my response was patronising.
If you are truly against inciting hatred, you will ban all forms of hatred, including hatred against rich people. Indeed, given that Communism killed over 100 million people during the 20th Century (far more than nazism or “racism”), it would seem that “wealth vilification” would be the most dangerous brand of “incitement” going around.
Are you a Communist?