Freedom of Expression

We did it!

2008-12-24T11:23:00.002+11:00

It's been two years since our last post which means it's been over three years since the Anti Terror laws came into effect and three years since a disparate group of artists, writers and filmmakers met in Robert Connolly's office to discuss the new laws' effect on free speech.

Yesterday the Government agreed to accept 25 of the ALRC's 27 recommendations including removing "Sedition" from the statute books. The remaining 2 provisions were accepted "in principle" which means, for all intents and purposes, the Government has accepted the ALRC's report in full.

This is a fantastic victory. Congratulations and thank you to everyone who lobbied, wrote, painted and testified.

I'm happy to say this will be our last post. The ALRC's website has lots more information.

The Writer In A Time of Terror

2006-11-08T20:58:00.000+11:00

"we [are] finding ourselves in a world where we no longer know what we are allowed to know and what we are allowed to say"

The lead essay in the November issue of the Griffith Review is by Frank Moorhouse, "The Writer In A Time of Terror". It researches the recent controversial threats to free expression (books banned, hard drives smashed) and looks at the consequences of stifling debate. Is the freedom to speak and write an acceptable consequence of the war on terror or a vital part of a strong and vibrant society?

SBS

2006-10-29T20:58:00.000+11:00

There has been much debate on SBS's inclusion of sedition in its Licensing Agreement. Obviously, since it's a new law, the previous SBS Agreement didn't offer a producer indemnity against sedition. The new agreement indemnifies producers against a charge of sedition (which means SBS will pay the cost of defending such a charge), but it requires the producers to undertake that they are not aware of any seditious material and that they are not deliberately putting seditious material to air.

From SBS's point of view it is doing its best to protect film-makers while it complies with the new law. The problem is that they must include sedition in the clause at all.

The Government is unlikely to charge an artist with sedition (imagine the publicity). They won't have to; anything that could be construed as seditious will likely have been eliminated by zealous lawyers long before it goes to air or to print. And with the bathwater goes the baby.

Our call to the Attorney General remains the same: Remove the sedition provisions which represent a real and palpable threat to the democracy that sustains our way of life.

More on self censorship and impartiality

2006-10-18T12:38:00.000+10:00

In the last few days both our public broadcasters have taken steps to ensure that it will be more difficult to air controversial material. SBS has insisted that filmmakers now police their own work for seditious material and the ABC has appointed a Director of ABC Editorial Polices to ensure impartiality (whatever that is).

Less recently but just as ominously the OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification) is no longer an independent body and is now run by the Attorney General's department. The government was able to ban the books at the University of Melbourne, not because they were seditious but because they were refused classification by the OFLC.
In case you were wondering why banning books is such a bad idea, here is George Williams' articulate response to the recent threats to academic freedom.

What is puzzling is why a government with a majority in both houses and a clearly beloved leader who is about to become our longest serving Prime Minister feel the need to muzzle dissent?

Remember the good old days when freedom of expression was championed by our leaders as a cornerstone of democracy?

Public Broadcaster calls for Self Censorship

2006-10-17T21:57:00.000+10:00

For many years an ugly piece of legislation lay slumbering. Now – prodded
awake by the Federal Attorney General Phillip Ruddock – we are seeing the
distempered beast in action. The public broadcaster SBS has included – for
the first time its history – a sedition clause in its standard TV licence
agreement. Gasp! Cover your mouths! See the beast topple freedom of
expression!

Here is a blow-by-blow account of how it happens: the broadcaster requires
that the producer of the TV program “fully and frankly disclose all
information within its knowledge to SBS relating to any potential
[seditious] Cause of Action”. First punch: the broadbrush mere potential of
sedition requires full disclosure. Next, if the producer becomes aware of
any fact or circumstance which “may give rise to a [seditious] Cause of
Action” then the producer must promptly give written notice of this to SBS.
Knock-out punch: if the producer fails to follow this zealous process then
the broadcaster will not be able to indemnify the producer against financial
liabilities in the event of legal proceedings. It goes without saying that
the broadcaster can offer no protection against the harsher penalties
attached to sedition, namely, imprisonment.

In other words, the creators of TV programs are now being asked to
diligently self-police.

Please find the full clause below:
"5A Legal consultation and litigation

5A.1 The Licensor will consult with the Commissioning Editor to
consider whether the production or publication of the Program could expose
SBS to liability in relation to any of the following causes of action (Cause
of Action):

(a) defamation;

(b) contempt of court, parliament or similar body;

(c) breach of any duty of confidence;

(d) breach of any legal restriction prohibiting the
identification of individuals in certain circumstances; or

(e) sedition.

5A.2 The Licensor will fully and frankly disclose all information
within its knowledge to SBS relating to any potential Causes of Action and
will make further inquiries at the request of SBS. If the Licensor becomes
aware at any stage of any fact or circumstance which may prevent SBS from
exercising its rights in the Program or which may give rise to a Cause of
Action, then the Licensor will promptly give written notice to the
Commissioning Editor.

5A.3 SBS will raise any concerns that the Program may give rise
to a Cause of Action with its legal advisers for the purpose of seeking
legal advice for the benefit of both SBS and the Licensor. The Licensor
will fully cooperate with SBS and its legal advisors and shall take such
steps as SBS and its legal advisors may require to minimise the parties’
potential liability in relation to any Cause of Action.

5A.4 If SBS’s legal advisors advise that any material in the
Program gives rise to a Cause of Action for which there is no readily
available defence, then SBS may request that the material in question be
deleted from or altered in the Program and the Licensor must company with
the request without delay and in any event prior to the first broadcast of
the Program.

5A.5 If any proceedings in respect of any Cause of Action in
relation to the Program (the Proceedings) are commenced against the Licensor
and / or SBS, then SBS will have full conduct and control of the Proceedings
and the Licensor will cooperate fully with SBS in respect of the conduct of
the Proceedings.

5A.6 (a) Provided that the Licensor has complied with
the preceding provisions of this clause SBS will in respect of
the Proceedings to the extent permitted by law indemnify the
Licensor against any and all financial liability the Licensor may
incur in connection with the Proceedings including costs incurred in
defending the Proceedings;

(b) For the purposes of the indemnity given under paragraph
5A.6(a) above, such indemnity will be construed as being given to the
Licensor and in addition (but only insofar as the matters to which such
indemnity relates arose in connection with the performance of their duties
in relation to the Program) to the Licensor’s officers and servants;

(c) Without prejudice to the limitation contained in paragraph
5A.6(a) above, if the Licensor is in breach of any provisions of this
Agreement, the indemnity provided in paragraph 5A.6(a) shall not apply to
the extent that the Proceedings relate to the subject matter of such breach.

5A.7 For the avoidance of doubt, this clause 5A operates
independently of the Licensor’s warranties under this Agreement."

Other support

2006-10-14T22:55:00.000+10:00

Peter Garrett (Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) released a media statement calling for the removal of the sedition provisions, as has Sydney PEN.

Still hoping for a statement from Malcolm Turnbull who was a vocal opponent of the sedition provisions when the bill was introduced last year.

Free Speech tops poll

2006-10-10T08:09:00.000+10:00

An AC Nielson poll puts free speech at the top of a list of Australian values. Published by Fairfax today, the poll asked 1400 people what they thought were the most important values mentioned by politicians in the last few weeks. Free speech was first closely followed by tolerance of different religions.
If you'd like to join the growing list, the statement is still available to sign.

Press Release

2006-10-07T18:14:00.000+10:00

The Press Release went out on Thursday morning to the federal press gallery, the national news agencies, talk back radio and the national press and radio news.

Once again, I'm sorry we weren't able to include individual names, however please do send a copy to your MP or senator.

If you'd still like to add your organisation's name to the press release please email us and we will update the release on this website.

Extended Deadline

2006-10-04T09:45:00.000+10:00

The response has been fantastic - thank you! I wish we had the capacity to add individual names. We are keeping all the emails on file and if we have the opportunity to expand the list of names to include the hundreds of individuals who would like to put their names to the press release, we will let you all know. In the meantime, the deadline has been extended to 4pm today - Wednesday. See the post below to download the press release and the link to email your organisations details.

Press Release

2006-09-28T22:21:00.000+10:00

A group made up of members of the arts and media industries has put together a press release to be distributed on Wednesday 4th October. The release can be downloaded here (just click). If you'd like to add your name to the release please click here to send an email. Unfortunately we only have the resources (mainly time) to add the names of organisations and not individuals to the press release.

We'd love to have the names by Wednesday morning.

The press release will be distributed to the media on Tuesday afternoon. Copies will also be sent to MPs from all parties and a copy posted on this site.

Attorney General rejects ALRC Review

2006-09-28T13:49:00.000+10:00

Well that last was an optimistic post. Two days after the ALRC released its report the Attorney General responded by saying that the Government did not intend to change its position.

To re-cap: there was a public outcry over the sedition provisions in the Anti-Terror Bill. The Senate Committee received an overwhelming number of submissions all but two of which recommended that the Sedition provisions be removed. The Senate Committee then recommended that the provisions be removed from the bill. The Attorney General refused to remove them but promised an ALRC review in the new year. Many submissions later, this review has also recommended that the provisions be removed. Two days later Mr Ruddock blithely considers ignoring it all.

Now would be a good time to write to your MPs expressing either outrage at Mr Ruddock's indifference to the ALRC review and/or that they will carefully consider and support the ALRC review when it's debated in Parliament.

More later.

Free Speech

2006-09-26T13:01:00.000+10:00

Free Speech may yet remain a bright point of democratic light. The ALRC has released its report and, as expected, recommends that the term Sedition be dropped and that laws governing free speech be kept separate from laws governing the urging of violence.

As usual the ALRC Release is concise and well written so there is no point in my paraphrasing. Click away and read it for yourselves.

There is also a publication "Fighting Words: A review of Sedition Laws in Australia". I haven't had a chance to read it yet - sorry I've been away which is why I'm a little behind with this posting. Chapter 8 is the one to look at. I've now opened up this blog so people can post comments. If anyone has any comments about the ALRC report or what happens next or recommendations for should happen next, please do so by clicking on "Add A Comment" below.

Summary of ALRC Proposals

2006-06-13T20:34:00.000+10:00

David Weisbrot, president of the ALRC, has summarised the ALRC proposals. It's a balanced and articulate piece of writing that advocates "a bright line" between protecting free speech and the reach of criminal law. It's good. You should read it. It'll either inspire you to read the Discussion Paper or save you the trouble.

In The Shadow of the Palms

2006-05-31T22:29:00.000+10:00

The documentary In The Shadow of the Palms about the lives of Iraqi civilians during the war is only tangently related to the very narrow purview of this website. I'm putting a link up anyway - screening details on the website.

Repeal or redraft?

2006-05-31T22:02:00.000+10:00

Editorial by George Williams in The Age earlier this week, summarising the ALRC discussion paper and applauding its suggestions. He also argues that there are, however, some cases where speech can be harmful to the community and should be criminalised. Comments welcome.

"Sedition" should be removed from the Statute Books says the ALRC

2006-05-29T14:46:00.000+10:00

The ALRC has been very quick in releasing a Discussion Paper based on submissions to its inquiry into the sedition provisions. According to their Press Release, the discussion paper recommends that "the concept of ‘sedition’ should be removed from the federal statute book, and offences urging force or violence against the government or community groups should be redrafted".

This is a brilliant result! However (of course there is a "however") we're only half way there. There is still time and opportunity for more community input. If you're reading this blog, you're a concerned citizen. Please download the Discussion Paper and respond to the ALRC by July 3.

(Click on the underlined bits to read the Press Release and Discussion Paper. Instructions on how to make a submission are at the bottom of the index page (scroll past the index for the Discussion Paper). Submissions can be short, informal and via email)

Useful links

2006-03-26T10:18:00.000+11:00

If you're reading this site for the first time since the ALRC Inquiry was announced (beginning of March) I suggest you start with the March 10 blog and work your way backwards.

Adam Simpson from Simpsons Solicitors has published a paper entitled Friendly Fire An Overview of Sedition Laws. It's an easy read and uses the recent controversy over the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad and John Pilger's comments on Lateline to analyse the implications that the provisions have for free speech.

He also comments in details about the drafting of the provisions:
how the word "urging" can be intepreted to go beyond direct encouragement and possibly include drama, imagery and other forms of expression (in this he quotes Peter Gray SC's advice to Peter Garrett MP in October last year);
a clear explanation of how notions of "intent" have been removed and replaced with a definition of "recklessness" which widens the scope of the kinds of offences that can be considered seditious; and
in analysing the new defence provisions, points out that "publishing a report or commentary about a matter of public interest" does not cover speeches, satirical writings, fiction, theatre, or visual art of any kind.

ALRC Inquiry

2006-03-20T21:31:00.000+11:00

The ALRC has released its Issues Paper and has asked for submissions by April 10. The ALRC has cast its net wide and is looking for submissions from "community groups; prosecution and law enforcement agencies; criminal defence lawyers; judges; government officials; media organisations and peak associations; legal professional associations; human rights and civil liberties groups; academics; and others." They have provided a handy guide to making a submission which must be written, preferably electronic, and they will "accept gratefully anything from handwritten notes or a few emailed dot-points, to detailed and comprehensive scholarly analyses".

Despite the warm and welcome invitation, if you still don't feel qualified to make a submission, please contact your union, guild or any other organisation you feel can represent your interests to the ALRC and urge them to make one on your behalf.

The Issues Paper is comprehensive (ie VAST). The questions which directly address freedom of expression and the sections which cover it are as follows:

Question 16.
Are the 'good faith' defences provided by 80.3 of the Criminal Code defined with sufficient clarity and are they adquate to protect freedom of expression and other interests? If not, how should they be framed?

Question 17.
Are jounalists and media organisations adquately protected by the defences in 80.3 of the Criminal Code?

See Sections 3.65 to 3.67 and 3.75 to 3.79

Question 22.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises
the right to freedom of expression and the right to hold opinions without
interference, subject to certain restrictions. Are ss 80.2 and 80.3 of the Criminal
Code necessary for the protection of national security or public order within the
meaning of art 19(3)?

See sections 5.17 and 5.28 to 5.33 and 5.34 to 5.39

Over the next week this website will be publishing ideas and links to articles which may help in drafting a submission. If anyone would like to submit any suggestions, particularly if they closely read and are able to clarify sections of the Paper which deal with freedom of expression, please email.

In the meantime, you may find it helpful to re-read the original Senate Submission (scroll down to No. 153), Chris Connolly's Five Key Facts on Sedition, Robert Connolly's presentation to the Senate Committee and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Report.

ALRC Inquiry

2006-03-10T22:01:00.000+11:00

The Australian Law Reform Commission has announced its inquiry into Sedition.

The terms of reference outlined by Phillip Ruddock ask the Commission to consider whether the sedition provisions "effectively address the problem of urging the use of force or violence". There is no mention of considering whether the provisions may restrict expression. However, the ALRC's own description of the inquiry refers to "concerns expressed through the media and identified by a Senate inquiry that the laws may intrude unreasonably upon freedom of speech" and its press release goes even further to say that concerns to protect the security of Australians must be "balanced against the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association".

So... what next?

Those of you with the ire and inclination to take part (and if you've made it this far you probably have the capacity to go one click further), head to the ALRC site and register your interest to receive updates. A discussion paper will be released as soon as possible "designed to help clarify the issues under consideration in this Inquiry". After the release of the discussion paper, the ALRC plans to consult with experts and "key stakeholders". Not sure how you identify a "key stakeholder" in this particular debate: concerned citizens? Enraged artists? Enthusiastic Attorneys General? After the discussion paper is released there will be submissions from organisations made up of key stakeholders and a final report will be tabled in Parliament at the end of May.

Please keep checking in.

Update

2006-02-20T18:09:00.001+11:00

Apologies for not having popped up earlier with comments on the amendments to the sedition provisions. There will be more regular communication once the promised review by the Australian Law Reform Commission is underway.

In the meantime, the amendments to the act outlined below now mean that an individual must advocate force or violence to be prosecuted for sedition. This is a vast improvement on the original wording and a small victory for those who continue to speak freely. Enormous effort went into the lobbying by various individuals and organisations (of the 294 submissions to the Senate about the sedition provisions 2 were in favour of them - AFP and the Attorney General's Dept in case you're wondering) and the ammendments while seemingly small go a long way to curtailing the more malevolent uses of the provisions.

There are still two provisions which do not include links to force or violence. These are 80.2 (d) and (e) which deal with urging another person to assist a person or organisation that is at war with the Commonwealth or engaged in armed hostilities with Australia's defence forces.

There is also criminal definition of "recklessness". You may not specifically urge the overthrow of the Government, you may not even desire the overthrow of the Government, but if there is a risk that your words may result in someone using force or violence to attempt do just that, you may well be committing a seditious offence.

So, while the addition of "to use force of violence" has gone a long way towards lessening the more ominous capacities of the provisions, concerns remain:

Self censorship - anecdotal evidence since the bill was first proposed suggests that publishers and broadcasters will be wary of risky and controversial material. Most of the publicity has centred around the rights of journalists and stifling open debate, but there are ramifications for fiction and drama.

Will these provisions drive terrorism further underground? Is open engagement a better means of way of combating or diffusing seditious views?

That's enough to mull on for the time being, there will be plenty more when the reveiw is announced. Until then, this site may be a little quiet.

Amendments to Seditions Provisions

2005-12-08T08:53:00.000+11:00

The amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Bill have been posted. The amendments that affect the sedition provisions are as follows. We will soon post a legal opinion on these amendments. The review of the Sedition provisions will be conducted in the new year by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Any submissions by the Arts community to that review will be posted here so please keep checking in.

(68) Schedule 7, item 4, page 109 (line 14), after “an intention”, insert “to use force or violence”.

(69) Schedule 7, item 12, page 111 (line 11), omit subsection 80.2(2), substitute:

(2) Recklessness applies to the element of the offence under subsection (1) that it is:

(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth; that the first-mentioned person urges the other person to overthrow.

(70) Schedule 7, item 12, page 112 (lines 6 and 7), omit “, by any means whatever,”.

(71) Schedule 7, item 12, page 112 (lines 18 and 19), omit “, by any means whatever,”.

(72) Schedule 7, item 12, page 113 (after line 29), at the end of subsection 80.3(1) (before the note), add: ; or (f) publishes in good faith a report or commentary about a matter of public interest.

An Open Letter from Robert Connolly to all Senators

2005-12-05T10:52:00.000+11:00

Dear Senator,

The Prime Minister today represented to the Australian public that there was no difference between what the government proposed in its terror legislation with regard to sedition, and what has been in the Crimes Act for the last 50 years.

This stands in the face of the significant number of opinions from senior lawyers, legal academics, retired judges and politicians from all sides of politics that disagree. An overwhelming majority of submissions to the Senate Inquiry into the Anti-Terror Bill also disagree with the Prime Minister's assertion, as did the unanimous recommendation of the Senate Committee.

I'm sure most would agree that it is essential that there is absolute clarity on this matter before these proposed sedition provisions are passed by the Senate, and I have listed below 5 questions we believe the Senate should consider.

1. ARE THE SEDITION PROVISIONS MERELY AN UPDATING OF THE LAW AND UNCHANGED FOR 50 YEARS?

The Sedition Provisions have clearly changed in significant ways with numerous legal opinions backing this up, as documented in the many submissions to the Senate Committee and detailed in their report. In fact, the provisions include several new offences of sedition that have NEVER existed in Australian Law, and introduce an alternative element of "recklessness" into three other offences. The following questions address several further changes.

2. IS FORCE OR VIOLENCE REQUIRED FOR ALL CHARGES INVOLVING SEDITION?

No. There are 6 offences of sedition that have NO link to force or violence, despite representations otherwise by the Attorney General's Department.

3. ARE "GOOD FAITH" PROVISIONS AVAILABLE FOR ALL CHARGED UNDER THESE PROVISIONS?

No. The limited "good faith" provisions are NOT available to all associations, a major concern to Arts and Media organisations. The "good faith" provisions also reverse the onus of proof, with the defendant required to prove their innocence.

4. WHY ARE THE SEDITION PROVISIONS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY AND IN ADVANCE OF THE PROPOSED REVIEW?

It remains of concern that these provisions are made law in advance of the proposed review, this seems extraordinary considering the commonly held view that they are in need of review. As the Prime Minister represented today, the laws have been rarely used in 50 years, and we can see no reason why they are being passed so speedily in advance of this review if as also represented, they are unchanged.

5. HOW SHOULD THE PROPOSED REVIEW BE HANDLED?

We believe the review should be held by a third party (it has been proposed that this should be the Law Reform Commission), that the findings of the review should be public, and that an agreement to accept the findings of this review should be in place in advance before the provisions are made law.

Further information supporting in detail the above 5 points is available both in the joint submission to the Senate Inquiry made by Arts organisations, and also the Senate Committee's report.

Our position remains unchanged, that Schedule 7 of the Anti-Terror Bill 2005 should be removed in its entirety and reviewed as promised.

Any matter dealing with freedom of speech in a democracy should require absolute clarity of intent and application before being made law, and we trust that the Senate will also demand this clarity.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Connolly.

Amendments to the Anti Terror Bill

2005-12-03T15:20:00.000+11:00

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.

Combined Arts Industries Welcomes Senate Report

2005-11-29T11:10:00.000+11:00

The Senate Committee published its report on the Anti-Terror Bill 2005 today, with a unanimous position from all sides of politics seeking the removal of the sedition provisions pending an Australian Law Reform public inquiry. This is an exceptional result, and it is clear from the committee's report that the Arts Submission, and presentation to the Senate Inquiry, has been taken extremely seriously and had a significant impact.

The combined Arts Industries:

* welcomes the Committee's report and findings.

* support the recommendation to remove the sedition sections in their entirety

* support the call for an Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into the need for sedition laws, an important opportunity for these ancient laws to be removed forever.

* do not support the alternative recommendation from the Committee, Recommendation # 29 below, as we feel the sedition provisions must be removes so that all Australians will be protected.

The Senate Report can be downloaded from:

http://www.aph.gov.au

The key recommendations are:

Recommendation 27
5.173 The committee recommends that Schedule 7 be removed from the Bill in its entirety.

Recommendation 28
5.174 The committee recommends that the Australian Law Reform Commission conduct a public inquiry into the appropriate legislative vehicle for addressing the issue of incitement to terrorism. This review should examine, among other matters, the need for sedition provisions such as those contained in Schedule 7, as well as the existing offences against the government and Constitution in Part II and Part IIA of the Crimes Act 1914.

Recommendation 29
5.176 If the above recommendation to remove Schedule 7 from the Bill is not accepted, the committee recommends that:
• proposed subsections 80.2(7) and 80.2(8) in Schedule 7 be amended to
require a link to force or violence and to remove the phrase ’by any means whatever’;
• all offences in proposed section 80.2 in Schedule 7 be amended to expressly require intentional urging; and
• proposed section 80.3 (the defence for acts done ’in good faith’) in Schedule 7 be amended to remove the words ’in good faith’ and extend the defence to include statements for journalistic, educational, artistic, scientific, religious or public interest purposes (along the lines of the defence in section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975).

Recommendation 30
5.233 The committee recommends that the amendments in Schedule 1 of the Bill, relating to advocacy of terrorism, be included in the proposed review by the Australian Law Reform Commission as recommended above in relation to Schedule 7.

Art In A Time of Crisis

2005-11-22T20:03:00.000+11:00

On Friday, November 11, Eva Sallis gave a lecture at Flinders University, entitled Art In A Time of Crisis. It as it is one of the most insightful and beautifully written essays to come out of this debate, touching on the responsibilities of artists at a time when their voices are being stiffled and has now been published by New Matilda. Issue 66.

Eva Sallis is an author and academic based in South Australia. Her latest book is Marsh Birds.

...............................................................................................................................

Forum for Writers, Journalists and Publishers

2005-11-22T11:30:00.000+11:00

The NSW Writers' Centre is organising a forum on the evening of Tuesday, 29 November about the impact the new terror laws (in particular the sedition provisions) will have on writers, journalists and publishers.
NSW Writers' Centre is in the Rozelle Hospital Grounds, Balmain Road, Rozelle
(Enter the hospital from Balmain Road and follow the signs to the Centre.
Tuesday 29 November, 6pm - 8pm
The Café Bar will be open for refreshments from 5.30pm.
RSVP essential. Inquiries Irina Dunn.
Call (02) 9555 9757 or email nswwc@nswwriterscentre.org.au.
Free entry
Speakers include

LAWRENCE GIBBONS is the CEO of the Alternative Media Group Editor and
publisher of The Sydney City Hub, an independent progressive news weekly.
He has worked for the San Francisco Bay Guardian and other alternative
publications in New York, Toronto and Honolulu.

SYED ATIQ UL HASSAN is a senior journalist, a media writer and an active
community worker representing the South Asian community in Australia. He
founded and is editor-in-chief of Tribune International, the first
multicultural English (ethnic) newspaper in Australia.

JACK HERMAN is Executive Secretary of the Australian Press Council, the body
that deals with complaints about the Australian print media and acts to
maintain the traditional freedom of the press enjoyed by Australians.

PETER MANNING is adjunct professor of journalism at the University of
Technology, Sydney, and a former head of news and current affairs at both
the ABC and the Seven network.

CHRIS NASH is Director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism,
Associate Professor in the UTS Faculty of Humanities¹ Journalism Program and
a Walkley Award winner.

ROBERT PULLAN is a freelance Sydney writer whose books include Guilty
Secrets (Pascal Press 1994) and Four Corners: 25 Years (ABC Books 1986). He
is writing The Press Gang, a history of the Australian press and is on the
Management Committee of the Australian Society of Authors.

NICK PARSONS is Chairman of Currency Press, the performing-arts publisher,
and a writer and director in film, television and theatre.

2005-11-16T20:45:00.000+11:00

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.

Senate Inquiry

2005-11-16T20:38:00.000+11:00

Robert Connolly and Chris Connolly will be appearing before the Senate Inquiry tomorrow morning between 9:00 and 9:45 am in support of their submissions and to answer questions. Details of their presentation will be available on this site after 9:30.

Senate Submission

2005-11-14T11:06:00.000+11:00

Thank you to all who emailed to add your names to the Senate Submission. (And apologies to those we couldn't include after the cut-off time). We've had over a thousand hits on this website over the past week which amounts to an extraordinary amount of interest in this campaign. The final submission is now available on the senate website , (Submission No. 153).

If you're reading this website, you may also be interested in having a look at the New Matilda website as they are drafting a Human Rights Bill. If you follow the links on the left hand side under Policy links they lead to a series of terrific articles about why Australia should be considering a bill of rights, along with an outline of the planned campaign which includes community consultation

Last night's sold out Sedition! concert was a triumph. David Marr from the Sydney Morning Herald has written an article in the Sydney Morning Herald but I can't find it online. Sorry. There is plenty about the sedition provisions in both the Age and the SMH (the only two I've had a chance to check). An Op-Ed piece from Ian Barker which I'm pleased to say is a much more convincing piece of writing than Philip Ruddock's defence of the provisions. The Age has also published Philip Ruddock along with a detailed history of how sedition laws have been used in Australia by Laurence Maher and a piece from Friday's Age by Natasha Cica.

Please do keep checking this site as there will be more to do.

Senate Submission

2005-11-10T17:19:00.000+11:00

A submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee is being drafted. We hope to have it up on this site by the end of the day (okay - that was a little optimistic, it'll be closer to 9pm EST). As soon as it's up there will be a mechanism in place by which you can add your or your organisation's name. Please stay tuned.

The Next Step

2005-11-07T13:05:00.000+11:00

As you may be aware, the Attorney General Philip Ruddock has announced that there will be a review of Sedition Laws in Australia next year.

While it is good news, and shows that our efforts this week have had an impact, it remains a concern that the Anti Terror Bill including the sedition provisions could be passed on the assumption that a fair and reasonable review of sedition will take place sometime in the future.

It is our feeling that the sedition provisions in the Anti-Terror Bill should be removed in their entirety now, and the whole issue of sedition be considered separately at a later date with proper scrutiny. We have taken legal advice on this now from two different lawyers who both agree that the sedition provisions (Schedule 7 of the Bill), can easily be removed without impacting on the rest of the bill.

This would allow the significant human rights and civil liberties issues in the rest of the Bill to be the subject of much needed scrutiny at the Senate Inquiry in the coming weeks, without being overshadowed by the attention given the sedition provisions.

It would also guarantee that any review of the sedition provisions happened BEFORE they are made law.

A letter went out to Members of Parliament today (click here to see the full text). Please use this letter as a starting point for faxes and emails to your own Member of Parliament as well as to key members of both parties (sympathetic backbenchers, minsters and shadow ministers). A full list of fax numbers and email addresses can be obtained from the House of Representatives link on the right (or click here to download a pdf file). It would be wonderful if faxes and emails could be sent by the close of business on Tuesday.

Those of you who are new to this site may also want to read the first two posts.

What To Do Next

2005-11-05T10:42:00.000+11:00

Please read the Original Press Release and FAX your local Member to express your views and concerns. It would be wonderful if the faxes could be sent by the end of Monday 7^th November. If you don’t have access to a fax, please email and/or snail mail.

To the right are links to the Parliament House website listing all Members of Parliament and Senators along with their contact details.

Live On Stage - Acts of Sedition!

2005-11-05T10:28:00.000+11:00

And a good article from the Sydney Morning Herald, November 5, 2005

Background

2005-11-05T09:16:00.000+11:00

Chris Connolly has written an excellent and concise summary of the possible impact Schedule Seven may have on freedom of speech and expression and why we are calling for its removal. Click here for the CONNOLLY SEDITION PAPER a Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee by Chris Connolly from the Law Faculty of University of New South Wales.

ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE - This was distributed to all media on 1^st November. A slightly amended version was sent to Members of Parliament and Senators on both sides of Federal and State politics.

What to do next:

To the right are links to the Parliament House website listing all Members of Parliament and Senators along with their contact details.