Australian Police State Legislation Pending

#1
The Howard administration has drafted proposed legislation aimed at turning Australia into East Germany with kangaroos. It has proposed legislation that would:

** Subject any person to a "control order" on the ex parte application of the government. Control orders could confine the subject to his home, prohibit him from using electronic communications devices, require him to wear tracking devices, prohibit the subject from associating with specified persons, or restrict his employment to approved employers. Such "control orders" are to remain in effect for as long as the government wishes.

** Authorize the government to withhold from a control order subject's lawyer the evidence on which the order is purportedly based.

** Allow secret detentions of terrorist suspects for up to fourteen days without charges.

** Authorize the incarceration, for up to five years, of a terrorist suspect for revealing to others that he is being detained as a terrorist suspect.

** Authorize the government to monitor all communications between a terrorism detainee and his lawyer.

** Authorize the government to withhold from the detainee's lawyer the alleged grounds for detention.

** Suspend all legal guarantees of confidentiality, including the attorney/client privilege.

"The New Anti-Terror Laws in Australia" by Maz Bukhari. 14 October 2005
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUK20051014&articleId=1079
 
#2
Excellent news, it means me and my family will be that little bit safer when we go next year.

Good news all round :)
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#3
I'm all for the police abducting terrorist suspects and killing them. Some of you may have more hard line views on this.
 
#6
Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister Jon Stanhope posted the draft legislation on his own website.

The Australian government told him to remove it.

He declined to comply.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16924260%5E601,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1482961.htm

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67339

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...s/2005/10/15/1128796748236.html?oneclick=true

Neither these reports in the Australian media, nor any others I could find linked to the offending material.
 
#8
** Authorize the government to withhold from a control order subject's lawyer the evidence on which the order is purportedly based.

** Authorize the incarceration, for up to five years, of a terrorist suspect for revealing to others that he is being detained as a terrorist suspect.

** Authorize the government to monitor all communications between a terrorism detainee and his lawyer.

** Authorize the government to withhold from the detainee's lawyer the alleged grounds for detention.
These are a shocking set of laws, for a democratic country to have such policies is disgraceful. Australia is at the top of a slippery slope and this is a step over the edge. The others laws I can see some justification for but to refuse a detainees lawyer the evidence required to fight their case is a fundamental breach of their human rights. Before you all start ranting about protecting the human rights of the victims, just bare with me, prove a person guilty fair and square then remove their human rights. Remember this, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, this statement is one of the mainstays of a democratic society, it's what separates us and other democratic nations from the rest of the scum that rule this earth!
 
#10
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
The Howard administration has drafted proposed legislation aimed at turning Australia into East Germany with kangaroos. It has proposed legislation that would:

** Subject any person to a "control order" on the ex parte application of the government. Control orders could confine the subject to his home, prohibit him from using electronic communications devices, require him to wear tracking devices, prohibit the subject from associating with specified persons, or restrict his employment to approved employers. Such "control orders" are to remain in effect for as long as the government wishes.

** Authorize the government to withhold from a control order subject's lawyer the evidence on which the order is purportedly based.



** Allow secret detentions of terrorist suspects for up to fourteen days without charges.

** Authorize the incarceration, for up to five years, of a terrorist suspect for revealing to others that he is being detained as a terrorist suspect.

** Authorize the government to monitor all communications between a terrorism detainee and his lawyer.

** Authorize the government to withhold from the detainee's lawyer the alleged grounds for detention.

** Suspend all legal guarantees of confidentiality, including the attorney/client privilege.

"The New Anti-Terror Laws in Australia" by Maz Bukhari. 14 October 2005
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUK20051014&articleId=1079
What a quality idea to plant, create a bit of terror , water it down a bit.
Then when it gets kicked out by the Aussie parliament/lawmakers , they'll end up with what the U.K. is planning
WIN / WIN situation for the Aussie leaders
 
#11
VerminWA said:
** Authorize the government to withhold from a control order subject's lawyer the evidence on which the order is purportedly based.

** Authorize the incarceration, for up to five years, of a terrorist suspect for revealing to others that he is being detained as a terrorist suspect.

** Authorize the government to monitor all communications between a terrorism detainee and his lawyer.

** Authorize the government to withhold from the detainee's lawyer the alleged grounds for detention.
These are a shocking set of laws, for a democratic country to have such policies is disgraceful. Australia is at the top of a slippery slope and this is a step over the edge. The others laws I can see some justification for but to refuse a detainees lawyer the evidence required to fight their case is a fundamental breach of their human rights. Before you all start ranting about protecting the human rights of the victims, just bare with me, prove a person guilty fair and square then remove their human rights. Remember this, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, this statement is one of the mainstays of a democratic society, it's what separates us and other democratic nations from the rest of the scum that rule this earth!
I have to say, I am perplexed by all this stuff. If the Government knows who these people are, or has a reasonably good idea at least, why go to all this trouble with prisons and so on? Don't they have snipers in Australia? I'm sure they'd get the right victim most of the time.
 
#12
And all this from a country that used 'gunboats' to turn away illegal immigrants not 4 years ago
Shocking!!!!
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

GOOD on 'em :lol:
Now all we have to do is get a government with a touch of backbone and we're sorted
 
#16
From UPI.

1. Somebody is sending up trial balloons to the effect that the proposed new "anti-terror" legislation may be softened into something less egregious than the recently leaked draft version.

2. The pending draft recites that police are authorized to shoot a person who attempts to evade preventative detention by running away.

3. Civil libertarians object that imposition of seven year sentences for advocacy tending to incite racial hatred is tantamount to criminalizing what was previously protected free speech.

"Facing protests, Australia to relax anti-terror laws" 17 October 2005
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051017-100721-5452r
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#17
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16965522%5E2862,00.html

Steve Bracks is Premier of Victoria and Minister for Multicultural Affairs.
He is a member of the Australian Labour Party.

Tanya Giles of the Herald Sun said:
19Oct05

Bracks shoots down terror law

Steve Bracks yesterday warned John Howard that Victoria would not support shoot-to-kill provisions in the new national anti-terrorism laws.

The Premier said the Prime Minister had not discussed the shoot-to-kill plan with state and territory leaders at their national terror summit.

The plan would give federal police the power to kill suspected terrorists.

Mr Bracks said Victoria would only pass laws agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments meeting.

"Other matters the Prime Minister may wish to pursue, he will have to do under his own legislative capacity if he chooses to, in a way that is appropriate, involving the Australian community," he said. "But in relation to this COAG, we will agree to the letter of the law we forged at COAG."

Mr Bracks and the nation's other state and territory leaders agreed to the Federal Government's push to extend terrorism laws at the COAG meeting on September 27.

Mr Bracks' agreement was conditional on safeguards, including judicial oversight, legal representation for detainees and sunset clauses.

Mr Bracks said he would hold the Prime Minister to his pledge that the anti-terrorism package would contain no more and no less than what was agreed at the COAG meeting.

He said the deal forged at COAG would be scrutinised by Cabinet before passed through Parliament and into law.

"I will not compromise on community safety. I will not compromise on the safety of Victorians and the opportunity to detect terrorism, to prevent it happening and to assist in the recovery process as well," Mr Bracks said.

"That's why we forged with the premiers, with the territory leaders and the Prime Minister at COAG, a set of laws (with) safeguards in them."

Mr Howard said the laws had been modified since they were made public, but no major changes would be made.

He said the so-called shoot-to-kill provision merely mirrored existing police powers.
 
#18
They'd better pass that anti-terrorist legislation quickly because (quelle surprise) P.M. Howard just got a hot tip about a "specific" terrorist threat directed against Australia.

Alas, P.M. Howard can't be the least bit specific about what it allegedly is. I mean, he can't reveal

(i) the identity of the alleged target(s), or

(ii) the type(s) of weapons allegedly planned, or

(iii) the identity(ies) of the alleged intended perpetrator(s), or

(iv) how he allegedly learned of these plans.

"You will understand that there are sensitive operational matters and I cannot and will not go into further detail," he said.

"Howard warns of new terror threat" by Grant Holloway. 2 November 2005
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/11/02/australia.terror/index.html
 
#19
Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister Jon Stanhope leaked on the internet a recent prior incarnation of the proposed "anti-terror" legislation.

The powers that be intend to make sure that he doesn't reveal the latest version to the public prematurely; they've compelled him to sign a gag order.

Mr Stanhope said he had received the final draft of the legislation, expected to be introduced into Parliament this week, but would not be releasing it publicly.

"I'd very much like to like to but ... I can't do that without risking some sort of legal response from the Commonwealth," he told the Ten Network.


"Stanhope hit with terror law gag" 30 October 2005
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/stanhope-faces-terror-law-gag/2005/10/30/1130607137750.html
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#20
I'm glad I'm in Europe where I have the Germans, Italians and the French to guard my civil rights....

Whatever happened to Badermeinhof, The Red Brigade or the Algerian terrorists, they all disappeared didn't they...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top