Terror laws: End them, don't amend them

The terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11 are being used as a 
pretext for a massive attack on civil liberties in the US and, at the 
insistence of the US Government, in Australia and elsewhere.

by Hannah Middleton
President, Communist Party of Australia

September 11 has given greater impetus to arguments by police and 
intelligence agencies that terrorism and activism are the same problem and 
need to be approached in the same manner. Terrorism replaces communism or 
subversion as the justification for shutting down political dissent.

A number of Bills have been introduced into Federal Parliament. They are:

Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 [No. 2]
Criminal Code Amendment (Espionage and Related Offences) Bill 2002
Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2002
Criminal Code Amendment (Suppression of Terrorist Bombings) Bill 2002
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Bill 2002
Border Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2002
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment 
(Terrorism) Bill 2002

Together they constitute a major attack on democratic rights in our 
country. The threat of "terrorism" is being exploited as a pretext to 
legislate for the loss of rights and liberties and to criminalise social 
dissent — militant unionism, direct action by social movements and so 
forth.

It is clear these laws will be used to further harass and intimidate the 
Islamic and Arab communities in Australia.

The Howard Government proposals create unacceptable possibilities for 
abuses of power and they legalise and institutionalise repression in 
Australia. It is easy to imagine that they could be used to criminalise 
opposition to government policy. Providing any government with such power 
is dangerous.

The new laws contain many negative features. The four most dangerous 
elements are:

* The definition of terrorism
* Banning organisations
* Reversing the onus of proof
* New powers for ASIO

The definition of terrorism

One of the main evils of the proposed legislation is the extremely broad 
definition of a "terrorist act" which would allow, as Tim Anderson (who has 
personal experience of being unjustly jailed as a "terrorist") says, 
"almost any form of political, religious or ideological bluster, threats, 
property damage or marginal illegal activity" to be defined as a terrorist 
act, punishable by life imprisonment.

"The new powers in Australia will be used selectively against activist 
targets, marginalised or demonised groups and individuals and racial 
minorities", he says.

Government MPs have already made it clear, for example, that the 
demonstrators who pushed over a fence at the refugee detention centre at 
Woomera were engaged in a "terrorist act".

The definition of "terrorist act", includes actions that are made with 
"with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological 
cause" and includes any act that "seriously interferes with, seriously 
disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system".

An electronic system is defined broadly to include systems used in most 
areas of industry, such as information systems, telecommunications, 
financial systems, the delivery of essential government services, essential 
public utilities, and transport systems.

This would make peace protestors trespassing at a US military base like 
Pine Gap "terrorists". It would make a campaign to flood the emails, phones 
and/or faxes of politicians "terrorist acts". And anti-globalisation 
computer attacks on TNC websites would be "terrorism".

Using this unacceptably broad definition of terrorism, the legislation 
creates a series of offences such as collecting or making documents 
connected with terrorist acts, possessing things connected with terrorist 
acts or financing terrorist acts. All these offences can be punished with 
life imprisonment. There is an exemption for lawful advocacy, protest or 
dissent. However, this would not cover a range of industrial or political 
activities.

The legislation can include as "terrorist acts" civil disobedience by peace 
groups, anti-globalisation blockades, MUA pickets and political strikes, 
actions to stop logging in forests, and similar activities.

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon requiring new legislation. All that 
distinguishes a "terrorist" act from any other criminal act is its 
political motivation. There is no need for a new offence of terrorism.

Offences under the criminal code such as murder, grievous bodily harm, 
criminal damage, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting can and should be used 
to prosecute "terrorism".

Banning organisations

The Attorney General will be able to proscribe organisations "likely to 
endanger, the security or integrity of the Commonwealth or another 
country". Members and those "assisting" a banned organisation may be 
sentenced to 25 years jail.

The phrase "or another country" would allow groups which support anti-
colonial or national independence struggles to be banned. Under this law 
Nelson Mandela's ANC or East Timor's Fretilin could have been banned, and 
Australian supporters jailed.

Already the government has a list of groups to be banned, which include 
Kurdish organisations, and Colombian guerilla group the FARC.

The proposed power to ban organisations goes well beyond the failed Menzies 
Government's Communist Party Dissolution Act of 1950.

The law is so broad that it could impact all kinds of groups. The 
Australian Bankers Association (hardly a radical group) has complained 
because the legislation means bank tellers could face criminal charges for 
taking a deposit from a group which — unknown to the teller — was a 
"proscribed" organisation.

Because the Bill reverses the onus of proof for "terrorist offences", bank 
tellers would have to prove they did not know the organisations had been 
outlawed.

Under the bourgeois democracy existing in Australia today, a basic concept 
of the legal system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

For "terrorist" crimes the onus of proof is reversed.

Someone arrested for some nebulous association with or assistance to a 
terrorist or banned organisation would have to prove their innocence. They 
would have no right to remain silent and could face five years jail for 
refusing to answer questions.

New ASIO powers

ASIO will move from spy agency to secret police.

ASIO would be able to arrest and hold people for questioning for 48 hours. 
Detention warrants could be renewed every 24 hours, which means detainees 
could be held indefinitely.

Detainees would have no right to a lawyer.

Detainees could be held incommunicado with no contact with family and 
friends or the outside world.

Detainees could face up to five years in jail for refusing to answer 
questions, removing their right to silence.

Shifting responsibility for detention and interrogation to ASIO will place 
detainees at risk because the accountability mechanisms for ASIO are 
significantly weaker than those for the police.

There are no rules for interrogation of detainees in the proposed 
legislation. Will torture be used?

We know that people suspected — not convicted — of al-Qaida links have 
been secretly sent to lands where torture is legal. An American diplomat 
said: "It allows us to get information from terrorists in a way we can't do 
on US soil."

Are the electronically upgraded detention centres for refugees now being 
built also to be available as concentration camps for dissenters?

Detainees do not have to be suspected of a "terrorist act". The same 
draconian measures apply to anyone who might have a vague association with 
or might have information regarding politically motivated violence. The 
Attorney General has said this could include lawyers and journalists and 
even children.

Surveillance

ASIO is also given additional powers to control mail and email and to 
conduct wiretapping.

In October, around the time of the MUA-Tampa eavesdropping scandal, former 
Defence Minister Peter Reith dramatically widened the Defence Signals 
Directorate (DSD) powers to spy on Australians within Australia.

Previously DSD, using the Echelon system, was officially only allocated to 
spy on Australians if they were working for a foreign power.

DSD could spy on almost any Australian for the purposes of "maintaining 
Australia's economic well-being", "promoting Australia's foreign 
relations", "preventing or investigating ... a serious crime" or 
"responding to the apparent threat to the safety of a person".

ASIO does not need new powers to detain people. There is an existing system 
where ASIO work in conjunction with the police force when arrest is sought. 
ASIO has extensive powers, including the power to break and enter premises, 
to conduct searches, and to copy and remove documents considered of use to 
national security.

ASIO can also intercept telephonic and electronic communications, use 
listening devices, inspect postal articles, and place tracking devices on 
people. These extensive powers are more than adequate for dealing with 
terrorist activity.

The right to a lawyer and right to silence are fundamental rights that 
should not be removed in any circumstances. The existing methods of 
criminal investigation and arrest can be used.

Recent developments

The eight Bills were rammed through the House of Representatives on May 8. 
However, they were held up in the Senate. The Greens and Democrats oppose 
the legislation and there are serious concerns among both Liberal and Labor 
Senators.

The Senate referred the proposed legislation to its Legal and 
Constitutional Legislation Committee. The Committee received 431 
submissions and brought down a report expressing serious doubts about some 
of the Bills.

The inquiry into the new powers for ASIO has not yet reported.

Widespread public resistance has not eliminated the bills but has forced 
some amendments to proposals.

The Government has withdrawn the legislation and is currently negotiating 
with its own backbenchers and with the ALP to see how much of the original 
proposals it can get through.

It is expected that the Bills will be returned to the Senate for debate on 
or soon after June 17.

Act now

The legislation is unacceptable and everything possible must be done to 
prevent its passage through Federal Parliament.

Send messages to the committee considering the ASIO legislation together 
with messages to all ALP and Democrat Senators, calling on them to throw 
the legislation out.

Contact as many other organisations as possible, urging them to do so.

The three main messages are:

* No new terrorism offences. The existing criminal law can be used.

* No banning of organisations or lists labelling individuals or 
organisations as "terrorists".

* No new powers for ASIO.

* * *

Based on a report given by Hannah Middleton to the CPA CC Executive May 
25-26.