Amongst the research digests flying out of the Parliamentary Library to keep up with the flurry of legislation the Howard Government is rushing through parliament is an analysis paper on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 [pdf]. The bill is aimed at making "publications, films or computer games that advocate terrorist acts be refused classification". As the paper notes this effectively makes it illegal to sell or distribute such material.

Australian Republicans are by nature civil libertarians. As a political philosophy republicanism is heavily reliant on the American innovation to constitutionalism where political rights are inalienably enshrined as fundamental law in the constitution. This means neither the executive or legislative can intrude into these liberties and prohibit them. This includes freedom of speech and expression.

The Howard Government is illiberal and has become increasing so, governing from the conservative perception that society must be protected against individuals expressing themselves non-violently in a manner which may be repugnant to the state. I am not advocating for terrorism, but I do recognise that the state has no justifiable right to prohibit an individuals expression in this area.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties argued:

the Bill is unnecessary and is an ineffective restriction on freedom of speech. CCL notes the problems of adopting from the Criminal Code the definitions of 'advocates' and 'terrorist act' arguing that these definitions will produce absurd and unwanted results

The Australian Democrats also oppose the bill proving once again they are the most republican and liberal party in Australian politics:

Their [AD] objections are that it undermines Australians' right to freedom of speech and further, the Australian Government should not be legislating in this area on constitutional grounds

I also have to say I have not bought Terrorist Insurance for a reason. Yet I have car insurance, life insurance, health insurance, home insurance and even home appliance insurance. The reason is because terrorism is such a low risk factor. I accept more risk every day by getting behind the wheel of my car and backing out onto the street.

I am not scared of terrorism.

And I live in a higher risk part of the world than most Australians (Washington DC area). I also am not scared of materials advocating terrorism. Certainly not to the point where government needs to protect me or others from seeing such material.

This legislation is illiberal and unrepublican. It has no place being tabled in parliament.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • Sacha . # . 2/2
    Cam, hope you're well and that your project is coming along.

    The sad thing is that most coalition MPs and senators wouldn't be able to argue at the level you're arguing here. Most of them just sprout slogans.