Australia’s counter-terrorism laws ?
THE Attorney-General has moved to soften Australia’s counter-terrorism laws, a week after police raided a cell of suspected extremists in Melbourne.
In an effort to move beyond the laws created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the US and the 2002 Bali bombings, Robert McClelland announced a suite of changes to Australia’s terror laws.
Under the changes announced last night, the length of time that police can detain terror suspects will be capped at nine days.
But police will be given the power to search premises without a warrant where they believe there is material that threatens public health, such as explosives or biological agents.
However, as a safeguard, police will not be able to enter a premises for the purpose of gathering evidence merely to address acute security threats.
The changes also extend the amount of time police have to re-enter premises from one hour to 12 in emergencies.
Mr McClelland said the government’s proposals hardened Australia’s laws in some areas and moderated them in others.
But he left little doubt that overall the adjustments represented a softening of the body of laws introduced by the Howard government, which he said had been passed “expeditiously” following the September 11 attacks and the 2002 Bali bombings.
Under the changes, the definition of a terrorist act will be expanded to include acts of “psychological” harm, as well as physical injury, and police will be allowed to search premises without a warrant if they believe dangerous materials, such as bombs or biological weapons, are located inside.
A new “terrorism hoax” offence will also be created, punishing people with up to 10 years’ jail if they convey the impression a terror attack is imminent.
And it will become an offence to incite violence against somebody on the basis of their race, religion or political opinion.
The changes also effectively abolish the offence of sedition, renaming it as “urging violence” and expanding its definition to include individuals as well as groups.
Mr McClelland said Australia’s existing laws were the product of the post-September 11 environment and the shock of the 2002 Bali attacks.
When asked if the Howard government had overshot the mark in drafting the laws, Mr McClelland said last night: “The previous legislation was introduced expeditiously as the circumstances required as an immediate response to the event of September 11 and the Bali bomb attacks.
“The government was required to act and acted expeditiously.”
But Mr McClelland said the time had come to recalibrate the laws.
“I think it’s appropriate, given reflections, given time, that we now need to shift our focus to a frame of reference that is long-term so that the public accepts the legislation which in many instances had time limits or sunset clauses, accepts the legislation as being valid, credible and effective, but balanced for the long term,” he said.
“This is the philosophy with which we’ve approached this task with.”
The most significant changes will see a cap of nine days placed on the amount of time police can detain a terror suspect without charge.
Under the existing laws, the police may apply to interview a suspect for up to 20 hours. However, the interviews can be suspended as police pursue their inquiries, leaving detention time effectively open-ended.
 |
COMMENTS
The NWO is moving full steam ahead people. Problem! Reaction! Soloution! is an ancient government art that goes way back!! Create a problem, wait for the fearful reaction and give the sheeple the solution. That solution means enslaving you even further into the ideal draconian totalitarian state that has been on the cards since the Bavarian Illuminati stamped their luciferian authority on the mighty greenback. They infiltrated this wonderful country of ours many years ago. The Bilderbergers are here and are alive and well and puitting their finishing touches to their Master Plan. If we don’t stand up for our rights people there will be none left stand up for.
Posted by: justjames of victoria
The headline is totally misleading. The new laws are certainly NOT softer. Read the paragraph below. “But police will be given the power to SEARCH PREMISES WITHOUT A WARRANT where they BELIEVE there is material that threatens public health, such as explosives or biological agents. However, as a safeguard, police will not be able to enter a premises for the purpose of gathering evidence merely to address acute security threats.” [end quote] Note how they claim there is a safeguard, but it has no weight whatsoever, as all they need to search your property is a “belief” that there is “material that threatens public health”. Material would be anything, documents, notes, would it also include phone tapping as per the Telecommunications Interception Legislation ? What is their definition of public health? People waking up to misinformation ? Did you see any weapons or biological items confiscated in the recent terror raids ? No. They collected mostly papers and nothing that looked remotely threatening. Don’t believe everything you read or see on TV without doing your own research. The truth is not always what it reportedly seems. Australia appears to be following in the footsteps of the US, moving towards a Police State, or Martial Law. Did you happen to catch the article the very next day after the raids were reported ? The one that says that they want armed forces to guard all army bases across the country? Sure I understand people will think it’s for better security, but pay attention to the patterns of how one story is blown out of proportion, and then results in major sweeping changes in a very short space of time. How about the 452 page national security legislation discussion paper that was announced a week later ? I don’t know about you, but my estimation is that it would takes months to research & produce a 452 page document on any subject, especially law, unless there were like 40 or 50 people working on it. Obviously that document has been in preparation way before the raids occurred, is that merely a co-incidence or does it seem like a good time to announce the major sweeping legislative changes right after an ALLEGED terror threat, with has resulted in no convictions, and only 5 charges that have not been clarified. So 5 alleged charges as a result of a 7 month investigation involving 400 police officers, and 19 property raids. Those numbers look a little unbalanced. Surely there should be a minimum of 19 people in questioning from 19 properties. Let’s see if anyone is convicted before the legislation is enacted, I highly doubt it. I’ll be surprised if this comment is even published unedited. http://www.sowtruth.com/2009/08/attorney-general-moves-to-soften-terrorism-laws/
Posted by: SowTruth.com