Asia Times: Proposed 'anti-terrorism' law flouts rights


	April 23, 2002	atimes.com

Oceania

Proposed 'anti-terrorism' law flouts rights
By Bob Burton

CANBERRA - "Anti-terrorism" legislation proposed by the Australian government would undermine international human-rights standards and should be rejected, a range of rights and community groups told a Senate committee inquiring into the draft bill last week.

Among others, Amnesty International (AI) has expressed alarm that the proposed legislation - the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 - would undermine international rights standards by reversing the onus of proof to those accused of "terrorism", so that they must prove their innocence, and also remove the right to silence.

Australia is one of several countries that are debating or have passed laws aimed at terrorism in recent months, especially after the September 11 acts of terror in the United States. "These measures contravene internationally recognized human-rights standards, including the right to be presumed to be innocent and the right to a fair trial. It is of further concern to Amnesty International that these measures would also apply to children," AI spokeswoman Nicole Bieske said.

But the director general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, Dennis Richardson, defended the proposed legislation to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee. "One line of argument would go that unless there is a major act of terrorism there is no need for this legislation," he said on Friday. Asked if "terrorism" is a value-laden term, Richardson conceded the point: "I suppose that's right."

The country's peak legal-industry body, the Law Council of Australia, which appeared before the committee last Thursday, described the proposed definition of terrorism - which is modeled on the British Terrorism Act passed in November 2000 - as "unacceptably broad, imprecise and unwieldy". In particular, it is critical of qualifying actions as terrorism if they are done with the intention of "advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". "The effect of such a definition is to remove from the definition of terrorism any element of intentionality to terrorize the government or the public through intimidation, coercion or the evocation of extreme fear," the Law Council wrote in its submission.

After three days of hearings on the legislation in Melbourne and Canberra, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee - which is evenly balanced between government members and members from the opposition Labor and a progressive minor party - is likely to be split on the legislation. When it issues its report to the senate on May 3, the fate of the legislation will hinge on the position adopted by the Labor Party, which, with minor parties, can block the legislation in the Senate.

"It is intellectually dishonest to exploit public fears about terrorism by introducing laws for which no justification has been or could be made," Anne O'Rourke of the civil-liberties lobby group Liberty Victoria told the committee last Wednesday. "History has demonstrated greater powers invariably lead to greater abuse."

The proposed legislation gives the attorney general the power to ban organizations that are deemed "terrorist" groups. Other provisions allow life sentences to be imposed on those directly or indirectly involved with "terrorist" organizations and allow "suspects" to be held without charge or access to a lawyer for potentially extended periods.

While the legislation has potentially far-reaching consequences, the scope for public comment has been severely constrained. After the release of the legislation on March 21, only two weeks - including the Easter holiday period - was allowed for public review. Even the Law Council of Australia was stunned. "The timeframe," it wrote in a paper, "is grossly inadequate and has severely curtailed public participation and consultation."

Despite the limited period for public comment, 250 submissions poured into the committee secretariat, when most Senate inquiries would struggle to attract more than a few dozen submissions. At hearings in Sydney last week, representatives from the Attorney General's Department confirmed that the cutting of bolts on a security fence - as occurred at recent protests at the Woomera detention center for refugees - would be deemed to be an act of terrorism under the proposed legislation. "Creating a separate offence of terrorism seeks to criminalize the motive of 'advancing a political, religious or ideological cause', rather than the acts involved," the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Sharan Burrow, submitted. "Rallies such as the [aboriginal] reconciliation marches, peace vigils, and [women's groups'] reclaim-the-night marches would all be caught within the bill."

Community groups are amazed that the proposed legislation would allow the attorney general to ban organizations if satisfied that the organization or a member on behalf of the organization was involved in supposed terrorist acts. "Had this been law in the Australia over the last two decades, it is possible that membership of organizations that supported the East Timor independence movement, or the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, could be deemed as endangering the security of another country and be banned," Burrow said.

Underlying opposition to the proposed legislation is the concern that Australian security agencies fail to distinguish between participation in democratic debate and "terrorism". "Debate and protest are not antithetical to democracy but are an essential element of a thriving democracy," the Liberty Victoria group told the committee.

(Inter Press Service)