I’m an Australian. I grew up in the heart of the Prime Minister’s electorate. I attended an Anglican school. I practice law and do some freelance writing. I speak with a broad Australian accent. English is my first language. The only passport I ever held was an Australian one. My favourite item of clothing is my Wallabies jersey.
I also happen to have a Muslim background. I have a Turkish and Arabic name. And after reading the provisions of the draft Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, I am terrified.
It took over 100 years to develop industrial relations into its current form in Australia. Now, the Commonwealth is spending millions educating us about our WorkChoices. Most ALP premiers are up in arms at the loss of state jurisdictions in sensitive areas such as unfair dismissal.
Industrial reform interests me because it is the area in which I practice the most. The rights and freedoms of Australian employers and employees is an important issue. We need to have public debate on workplace reform.
Our civil liberties date back to ancient Greece. It took centuries of civilisation and philosophical effort to develop our liberal democracy. It took hundreds of wars costing millions of lives to protect liberties we all take for granted.
But for some reason, the Prime Minister and most state and territory leaders are resisting debate on laws which represent perhaps the biggest assault of basic Australian civil liberties since Federation.
To make matters worse, few governments were happy to have the draft laws released to those whose liberties will be most affected - ordinary Australians. Were it not for the brave actions of ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope, Australians would have had no hope of having some idea of the extent to which liberties were endangered.
Mr Howard says the laws are based on agreement reached between commonwealth, state and territory leaders. He says there is little point having a discussion.
Effectively he is expecting Australians to accept the idea that people should have powers to kill anyone they suspect of being a terrorist. The “shoot to kill” power was nowhere mentioned in the PM’s proposals released on September 8, 2005. Nor was there any mention at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on September 27, 2005 of police being allowed to kill terror suspects.
So who will be shot? What sort of persons could be killed as potential terrorists?
Under United States law, there is a list of organisations deemed to be terrorist organisations. Membership of and support for such organisations is an offence. The organisations include the usual suspects such as the Abu Nidal Organisation. They also include the Israeli Kahane Chai movement, certain Northern Ireland militias and the Tamil Tigers.
In Australia, only groups linked to Islam or Muslims are deemed terrorist groups. Already, the president of a national union representing police officers across the country has stated that the proposed laws can only be implemented using ethno-religious and racial profiling.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
114 posts so far.