Amendments to the Anti Terror Bill
Despite the unanimous recommendation from the bipartisan Senate Committee that the sedition provisions be removed, the Attorney General in his wisdom has determined that the provisions will remain in the Bill.
According to newspaper reports he has agreed to some revisions to the definition expressly linking it to urging force or violence. As the revisions have not been posted on the Senate's website, we don't know exactly what they will (or won't) be. This either means they are having trouble drafting the revisions or wish to put them up at the last minute (leaving the public little time to examine the revisions and articulate a response).
The Australian has published a terrific editorial by Matt Price about the hold the Prime Minister exerts over his recalcitrant but ultimately compliant government.
The Daily Telegraph has publicised Malcolm Turnbull's opposition to the sedition provisions at a gathering of spies and policemen. At the same gathering the Director General of ASIO is quoted as saying there should be laws preventing people from verbally glorifying terrorists acts.
We already have laws to prosecute those who incite violence. Surely criminalising the expression of opinions (however odious) will drive the speakers underground where they can nurse their grievances and eventually leap back into the fray as marginalised victims of an unjust State. Syed Atiq ul Hassan in Media Monitors Network writes of the need to hear and understand our adversaries if we wish to combat them.
And the Attorney General apparently wants to hear from Charles Richardson on the CrikeyWebsite.
According to newspaper reports he has agreed to some revisions to the definition expressly linking it to urging force or violence. As the revisions have not been posted on the Senate's website, we don't know exactly what they will (or won't) be. This either means they are having trouble drafting the revisions or wish to put them up at the last minute (leaving the public little time to examine the revisions and articulate a response).
The Australian has published a terrific editorial by Matt Price about the hold the Prime Minister exerts over his recalcitrant but ultimately compliant government.
The Daily Telegraph has publicised Malcolm Turnbull's opposition to the sedition provisions at a gathering of spies and policemen. At the same gathering the Director General of ASIO is quoted as saying there should be laws preventing people from verbally glorifying terrorists acts.
We already have laws to prosecute those who incite violence. Surely criminalising the expression of opinions (however odious) will drive the speakers underground where they can nurse their grievances and eventually leap back into the fray as marginalised victims of an unjust State. Syed Atiq ul Hassan in Media Monitors Network writes of the need to hear and understand our adversaries if we wish to combat them.
And the Attorney General apparently wants to hear from Charles Richardson on the CrikeyWebsite.
