On one of the very few occasions one the Government’s “anti-terror” laws got some thorough scrutiny it was found to be over the top.
This week the Australian Law Reform poured a very reasoned bucket over the sedition sections in last year’s Anti-Terrorism Act. At the time the Government pushed ahead with the laws despite widespread condemnation.
The laws read like something out of a tinpot dictatorship or Tudor England.
They make utterances of seditious intent punishable by seven years’ jail and define “seditious intention” as meaning “an intention to use force or violence to effect any of the following purposes:
“(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
“(b) to urge disaffection against the following:
“(i) the Constitution;
“(ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;
“(iii) either House of the Parliament;
“(c) to urge another person to attempt to procure a change, otherwise than by lawful means, to any matter established by law of the Commonwealth;
“(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Law like these have been used against political opponents or other proponents of change like Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Zimbabwe opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and against the communist Peter Sharkey in Australia in 1949.
After the Sharkey case sedition in Australia became a dead letter until revived last year by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock as part of the anti-terrorism package. Ruddock’s Anti-Terrorism Act got the dead letter out and breathed more life into it by increasing the penalties from three to seven years; adding a new class of sedition for speech against groups of people; and by reducing the normal requirement of the mental element from intention to recklessness.
Many said at the time that satirists and ordinary political dissidents could be swept up in this law, but Ruddock’s response was that the laws pose no problem for civil liberties because no prosecution could be launched without the Attorney-General’s permission. Some comfort.
Punishing people
bill of rights free speech. Mps cannot be trusted.. they went ahead knowing it was defenctive.
It was pointed out at the time that satire
Posted: 31-05-2006
The Australian Law Reform Commission’s proposal makes sense, according to George Williams
LATE last year, the federal parliament passed a new law about sedition. At the time it was clear to many that the law was flawed. It punishes people with up to seven years’ jail not for what they do but for what they say, such as if they urge another person to overthrow by force or violence the constitution or the government. Our new sedition law is too broad both in the speech that is banned and in having too few defences.
The law is also highly problematic in being based on the discredited notion of sedition. Sedition laws have been used many times in the past against the political opponents of a government, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, and in Australia against Peter Lalor after the Eureka Stockade and later against members of the Communist Party.
Despite the problems with sedition, parliament passed the law anyway. It was a particularly poor example of law-making and indeed one of the worst in the history of the federal parliament. It is hard to think of another example in which a law targeting something as fundamental as political speech has been enacted as quickly with as many people from all sides of politics recognising that it needed to be amended even as it was being enacted.
The compromise reached at the time was that the new sedition law would be referred to the Australian Law Reform Commission for analysis and report. Yesterday, the commission released its discussion paper, with a final report to come. It is no surprise that it is proposing substantial changes.
A key finding is that the term ‘sedition’ should be removed from the statute book. The commission has recognised the discredited nature of such laws and the mistake made in reincarnating them in a modern guise.
The commission might have stopped there and simply recommended the repeal of the law. Instead, it suggests there is merit in a more narrow law that criminalises speech where it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a person has intentionally urged others to use force or violence, and intended that this force or violence would occur.
This is where those who oppose the sedition law will disagree. Some will argue that it should be completely removed and that the law should not in any circumstances criminalise someone merely for what they say. Others will recognise that it is sometimes acceptable to ban speech when this is done carefully so as to only proscribe expression that can cause great harm to the community.
My view is that a very limited form of offence is justified. We accept in other areas that freedom of speech can be limited, such as speech that vilifies people on the basis of their race with the intention to incite violence. We also accept that the law should ban advertising such as the promotion of tobacco products and perhaps even the advertising of junk food to children.
Even if we do have a law in this area, one of the problems with the present sedition law is the narrowness of its exceptions. It contains no defence for many forms of communication, such as artistic performances or even academic or scientific discussion. The law makes it an offence to say such things even when it is in the public or national interest to do so.
The existing law also fails to provide an exception for satire or comedy, a very Australian way of dealing with something as difficult and troubling as the war on terror. Fortunately, the commission has suggested a redraft to ensure that all these forms of communication are protected. There should be no doubt that they are outside the criminal law, lest fear of prosecution or even just a misunderstanding of the law leads people to censor themselves.
We are fortunate that the sedition debate has been reopened. In many other areas, new laws have been enacted since September 11 without any possibility of a re-examination. With the benefit of hindsight, some of these other laws can also be seen as deeply troubling. At least in the case of sedition, the commission has had the opportunity to set out the defects and to propose major change.
The reference to the commission was made by the federal government, under pressure from its own back bench and members of the community. It can only be hoped that this discussion paper will maintain that pressure and that we will see a bad law repealed. It should be replaced with something less damaging to our democracy. •
George Williams is the Anthony Mason professor and director of the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of NSW. This article first appeared in the Age.
Photo: Tomaz Levstek/ iStockphoto
Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law
Anti-terrorism Act No2 2005
In this section:
“seditious intention” means an intention to use force or violence to effect any of the following purposes:
(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(b) to urge disaffection against the following:
(i) the Constitution;
(ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;
(iii) either House of the Parliament;
(c) to urge another person to attempt to procure a change, otherwise than by lawful means, to any matter established by law of the Commonwealth;
(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.