Tweet
SECURITY LEGISLATION IS ERODING OUR FREEDOMS
David Barnett
Canberra Times - Australasia
Published: Feb 08, 2007
THE AGONISING in the Western world over legal process and individual
rights has been forced on us by Muslim terrorism. Centuries of
evolution in the development of those rights are being eroded. and
there is nothing we can do about it. The Europeans are debating
whether Holocaust denial should be a crime. Eleven countries have such
legislation, under which the British holocaust denier David Irving
served a prison sentence. The Economist lists the countries that have
acted as Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain countries
that contain most of Europe's racist and xenophobic parties.
Put another way, where there is ground in which the Big Lie might
take hold, governments conclude they cannot allow those to argue
that Germany did not kill sixmillion people in cold blood in death
camps, organised on factory lines to process victims. They cannot
pass them off as ratbags, as for instance, we do in Britain and
Australia. Then there is the question of whether, if it is wrong
to say that the Holocaust did not occur, should it also be wrong to
talk about other horrific crimes, perpetrated by other regimes the
Turkish massacre of the Armenians 80 years ago, and the Soviet prison
camps, the gulags, where people were worked to death? It is drawing
a long bow to say that we are heading back towards the Inquisition,
where holding views about the nature of the human condition and the
origins of mankind and of the world that were at variance with those
prevailing got you burnt at the stake. Nevertheless, as Chairman Mao
observed, every journey begins with a single step, and that is the
direction in which we are heading. Then there is a further dimension,
the position of the individual before the law. The common law operates
on the basis that it is better that the guilty should go free than
that the innocent should hang. Geoff Clark was found not guilty in
a criminal court of rape, on the grounds that the case had not been
established beyond reasonable doubt, but guilty in a civil court on
the grounds that the case was made on the balance of probabilities, the
principle that separates criminal proceedings from civil proceedings.
The woman who many years ago was, on the balance of probabilities,
raped, is now vindicated, although the decision in a criminal trial
that Clark was not guilty also stands. David Hicks, who was taken
prisoner while serving with the Taliban in Afghanistan and handed
over to the Americans, is said to have served with Albanian Muslims
who are seeking independence from Orthodox Serbia, to have trained
in Afghanistan, met Osama Bin Laden and to have served in Pakistan
against Indian forces in Kashmir.
On trial in Australia, in the face of determined denial that he ever
said or did these things, it would not be easy to establish a case
beyond reasonable doubt. Where is the corroborative evidence? Where
are the witnesses to whom Hicks gave these accounts? There might
not even be a law under which to charge him. There does not appear
ever to have been a prosecution in this country for treason, or for
treachery. Is the Taliban at war with Australia?
Is Australia at war with the Taliban? Whatever the position today,
what was it five years ago? Legal argument about that could go
all the way up to the High Court. But the most fundamental of the
issues is security legislation that is directed at averting acts
of terrorism. That is to say, the offence is not what you do do,
but what you might do. The purpose of this contribution is not to
argue that these laws are wrong. They are not. This is what we have
to do in the West if we are to preserve our freedom when contending
with the shadowy forces of terrorism The purpose is merely to point
out that in the process, regrettably, we are eroding our freedoms.
Those lawyers who raise their voices on behalf of those in jeopardy
under our legislation directed at terrorism are fully aware of this
paradox.
Nevertheless, as lawyers do, they are arguing their brief on legal
niceties, and on the individual's right to due process. They are
arguments that are easy to put and that are persuasive to a growing
proportion of the population. It is no longer just the pro- Palestinian
chattering classes.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
David Barnett
Canberra Times - Australasia
Published: Feb 08, 2007
THE AGONISING in the Western world over legal process and individual
rights has been forced on us by Muslim terrorism. Centuries of
evolution in the development of those rights are being eroded. and
there is nothing we can do about it. The Europeans are debating
whether Holocaust denial should be a crime. Eleven countries have such
legislation, under which the British holocaust denier David Irving
served a prison sentence. The Economist lists the countries that have
acted as Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain countries
that contain most of Europe's racist and xenophobic parties.
Put another way, where there is ground in which the Big Lie might
take hold, governments conclude they cannot allow those to argue
that Germany did not kill sixmillion people in cold blood in death
camps, organised on factory lines to process victims. They cannot
pass them off as ratbags, as for instance, we do in Britain and
Australia. Then there is the question of whether, if it is wrong
to say that the Holocaust did not occur, should it also be wrong to
talk about other horrific crimes, perpetrated by other regimes the
Turkish massacre of the Armenians 80 years ago, and the Soviet prison
camps, the gulags, where people were worked to death? It is drawing
a long bow to say that we are heading back towards the Inquisition,
where holding views about the nature of the human condition and the
origins of mankind and of the world that were at variance with those
prevailing got you burnt at the stake. Nevertheless, as Chairman Mao
observed, every journey begins with a single step, and that is the
direction in which we are heading. Then there is a further dimension,
the position of the individual before the law. The common law operates
on the basis that it is better that the guilty should go free than
that the innocent should hang. Geoff Clark was found not guilty in
a criminal court of rape, on the grounds that the case had not been
established beyond reasonable doubt, but guilty in a civil court on
the grounds that the case was made on the balance of probabilities, the
principle that separates criminal proceedings from civil proceedings.
The woman who many years ago was, on the balance of probabilities,
raped, is now vindicated, although the decision in a criminal trial
that Clark was not guilty also stands. David Hicks, who was taken
prisoner while serving with the Taliban in Afghanistan and handed
over to the Americans, is said to have served with Albanian Muslims
who are seeking independence from Orthodox Serbia, to have trained
in Afghanistan, met Osama Bin Laden and to have served in Pakistan
against Indian forces in Kashmir.
On trial in Australia, in the face of determined denial that he ever
said or did these things, it would not be easy to establish a case
beyond reasonable doubt. Where is the corroborative evidence? Where
are the witnesses to whom Hicks gave these accounts? There might
not even be a law under which to charge him. There does not appear
ever to have been a prosecution in this country for treason, or for
treachery. Is the Taliban at war with Australia?
Is Australia at war with the Taliban? Whatever the position today,
what was it five years ago? Legal argument about that could go
all the way up to the High Court. But the most fundamental of the
issues is security legislation that is directed at averting acts
of terrorism. That is to say, the offence is not what you do do,
but what you might do. The purpose of this contribution is not to
argue that these laws are wrong. They are not. This is what we have
to do in the West if we are to preserve our freedom when contending
with the shadowy forces of terrorism The purpose is merely to point
out that in the process, regrettably, we are eroding our freedoms.
Those lawyers who raise their voices on behalf of those in jeopardy
under our legislation directed at terrorism are fully aware of this
paradox.
Nevertheless, as lawyers do, they are arguing their brief on legal
niceties, and on the individual's right to due process. They are
arguments that are easy to put and that are persuasive to a growing
proportion of the population. It is no longer just the pro- Palestinian
chattering classes.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress