« Home | Senate Inquiry » | Senate Submission » | Senate Submission » | The Next Step » | What To Do Next » | Live On Stage - Acts of Sedition! » | Background » 

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 

Filmmaker Robert Connolly told a Senate Committee today that the sedition provisions in the current Anti-Terrorism Bill had the potential to curb freedom of speech and expression in Australia, and should be removed completely until subject to proper scrutiny and consultation.

Speaking at the Senate Inquiry into the new Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2, 2005) Connolly outlined the key concerns of a broad coalition of Australian filmmakers and artists regarding the sedition provisions in Schedule 7 of the Bill.

Connolly noted that sedition laws were increasingly seen internationally as un-democratic, and had been repealed over the past forty years in countries such as Canada, Ghana, Ireland, Kenya,New Zealand, South Africa,Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the USA.

He further pointed out that the only countries with active sedition laws in the world were China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Zimbabwe.

Connolly said “it seems pretty clear to me which list the majority of Australians would want Australia to belong to”.

Please click here to download more details of Robert's presentation to the Committee.

"Sedition law is the sleeping giant of authoritarianism, and it has the potential to inhibit freedom of expression and restrict open democracy.

The proposal has only been defended by the Commonwealth Attorney General, Philip Ruddock. No other senior lawyer or legal academic in Australia has defended the proposal. It has been opposed by more than 30 senior and eminent lawyers, legal academics and retired judges. In addition, the proposal has been opposed by all of the major legal groups, human rights groups, arts groups and media groups in Australia. Additional opposition has come from State Premiers, Territory leaders and Liberal backbenchers"

Chris Connolly has summarised the legal reasons for opposing the sedition provisions. This is the introduction to an elegant and concise five point summary that rebuts the Attorney General's defence of the provisions.

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates