Sedition Submission
I’ve just done my submission on the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill which I’ve included below. Submission close at the end of Tuesday. I’d encourage others to submit – my two pager took half an hour only and one can file them electronically.
- I write in support of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill.
- Generally speaking people should only go to jail for what they do, not for what they say. Of course this is not an absolute as you want to be able to restrict direct threats to individuals for example, but the current law is cast too wide.
- The existing Section 81(1) defines seditious intention as the intention:
-
- To bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection, against Her Majesty, or the Government of
- To bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection, against Her Majesty, or the Government of
- This section especially is very wide ranging. I excite disaffection against both Her Majesty (as a National Councilor of the Republican Movement) and the Government on a regular basis. I could be judged to excite disaffection against the administration of justice – as arguably could be the National Justice Spokesperson also. There are defences in Section 81(2) but these are not absolute.
- One can argue that the Police would use discretion and only prosecute case where someone is clearly trying to (for example) illegally overthrow the Government. Alas, the history of prosecutions has shown that this is not the case. Most recently it was used in relation to a
- In 2006 Tim Selwyn was convicted of sedition. His actions in smashing the window of the Prime Minister’s electorate office were deplorable and his actions in encouraging others to do the same were wrong. However these are a long way from needing a sedition law. His prosecution on other offences showed that the sedition charge was unnecessary as he was also convicted on the crime of conspiracy to commit criminal damage
- The blogger Idiot/Savant from No Right Turn has documented the historical uses of the sedition laws, and how these have been used and abused over our history. His archive is at http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2005/08/sedition-by-example-index.html and I recommend it as an excellent resource. Former PM Walter Nash is amongst those who have been found guilty of seditious offences.
- There are many other sections of the Crimes Act which can handle actions which are injurious to the public good, without the need of the sedition sections. They are:
-
- Treason s73
- Attempted Treason s74
- Inciting Mutiny s77
- Sabotage s79
- Unlawful Assembly s86
- Riot s87
- Criminal Nuisance s145
- Threatening to destroy property s307
- Threats of harm to people or property s307a
- Threatening act s308
- Conspiring to prevent collection of rates or taxes s309
- Treason s73
- The existing criminal code has numerous, more appropriate, alternatives to the sedition laws.
- Also sections of other Acts also cover certain undesirable behaviors such as
-
- s131 of the Human Rights Act 1993
- s5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
- s3-s8 of the Summary Offences Act 1981
- s131 of the Human Rights Act 1993
- In summary I agree with both the Law Commission’s report and the Bill before the Committee that the sedition laws should be repealed as:
- The meaning of sedition has changed over time and the definition in the Act is very broad and uncertain
- It is an infringement on free speech
- The current law could be used to restrict speech critical of the Government
- Other laws more are better suited to cover undesirable behaviour of a criminal nature
- The meaning of sedition has changed over time and the definition in the Act is very broad and uncertain
- I urge the Justice and Electoral Committee to support the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill, and to recommend its passage to the House.
David Farrar
16 July 2007
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
There are defences in Section 81(2) but these are not absolute.
These “not absolute” defences pretty much legal to agitate disaffection within normal political discourse. Therefore claiming that you would be targetted under s81(1) is rhetoric unworthy of a submission.
Former PM Walter Nash is amongst those who have been found guilty of seditious offences.
And Nelson Mandela was guilty of sabotage. Does that warrant the removal of sabotage from the Crimes Act?
July 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I can but say, “Hear, hear”.
Then again, if they’re out to get you, one law more or less won’t provide you with much defence. In Australia the courts just released Haneef, the doctor held for six weeks before being charged on suspicion of terrorism.
By the AFP’s own account this amounts to giving his terrorist cousin his SIM card before leaving the UK. A card which wasn’t used in any terrorist attack. And there’s yet to be proof offered that Haneef had any idea of the activities of his cousin.
For the court to grant bail on such charges is indicative of the fact said court views the accused as being of little or no threat.
This doesn’t suit the powers-that-be so the Immigration Minister steps in, revokes Haneef’s 457 visa, ships him to an immigration detention centre and then, regardless of his guilt or innocence as eventually decided by the courts, will deport him after the trial.
Laws? Who needs ‘em?! If the government of the day doesn’t like the cut of your jib, you’re history.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
So … should Treason be an offence?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Oh good. When its through, could all business, and employees who are able have a one day tax strike. I think that would send the gov a great message.
BTW yeah right Rex – thank god the Aussies have some sense!
July 16th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Bigger – read it wrong – bad day. Could we repal no 11 please?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Porcupine, I don’t happen to agree with the judge’s decision to grant bail but then again I didn’t hear the facts, and the AFP have done an absolutely crap job of explaining why, after six weeks of interrogation and turning the guys flat inside out, the best they could do was chanrge him with giving his SIM card to a relative before he left the UK.
But my point is, the day when a Minister of the Crown (who hasn’t heard any evidence) can do an end-run round a court and effectively decide guilt and impose a sentence (imprisonment followed by deportation) prior to trial is the day the Executive has just decided it can usurp the Judicial branch of government. And they say they need laws to protect them against OUR sedition?!
July 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I disagree – if as you say the evidence is flimsy against him, he will get of in the UK. If he is there on a visa and the law says you can cancel the visa then it sounds fine to me. Boot him back there for a trial and see – its not Aussies job to try him.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Porcupine, I agree with the law that allows you to detain someone on suspicion, but such a wide ranging law needs a fair bit of oversight.
The guy is an Indian doctor on a visa, and has a wife and family in Australia. He comes across in the press as a normal guy who has a second cousin who is a terrorist. God forbid that I ever be accountable for what my cousins get up to, let alone my second cousins.
Of course, it may well be that the guy is a terrorist. But there is a law in place that allowed the AFP to make that case, they failed to make it, and the judge released him. I see it as particularly inappropriate to now make an end run around that and use another law where it seems (on the face of it) that the guy hasn’t done anything wrong. For gods sake, as a Kiwi in Australia they could choose to do that to me too if they wanted to. I would rather the rule of law I think.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Are you also going to make a submission on the Regulatory Responsibility Bill?
[DPF - that's my intention]
July 16th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Yes Paul you have a point.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:55 am
I hope you proof-read it before you filed it.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:22 am
>after six weeks of interrogation
That’s the second time you’ve mentioned “six weeks”.
He was arrested on 2 July.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
DavidP – my apologies. That should have been “investigation”. I think you’re right, interrogation lasted two weeks without charge, after several extensions were granted under anti-terrorism laws, sometimes without defence counsel present.
They’ve also raided homes in WA – twice – with much surrounding media publicity and general plod-like chest beating. Then announced no one will be arrested, no charges have been laid, nothing to fear, nothing to see here, move along.
So while all this is going on, the people really plotting the terrorist acts must be laughing their socks off.
Seems most of the Australian legal fraternity agree with myself and PaulL.
I’ve seen the Australian “justice” system first hand. Its scary – and moreso if you’re a foreigner.
Another three young men have just been released from jail on yet another overturned murder conviction. Highlights of the Police “evidence” this time was taking scene photos with no film in the camera, failing to seal off the crime scene (a busy stretch of road) for four days, and then, when they did so, parking a patrol car right on the spot where the body had been. Yet still they managed to get a conviction (details here for those interested).
With the investigative Keystone Kops on the job, and the average Aussie juror’s undying belief that “well, the cop’s arrested ‘im, dinthey? He musta dunit then”, you’re fortunate indeed to avoid conviction for something you didn’t do. The last thing any non-citizen then needs is some headline-hungry pollie using immigration law when he doesn’t like the verdict. The term “kangaroo court” was clearly coined for a reason.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Recent media coverage of the NZ police would suggest that they’re no better.
I haven’t formed an opinion yet on Haneef. The SIM card issue does feel like it is a holding charge while they build a stronger case. You’ll recall that the Ouvea crew got away because the NZ police couldn’t process the evidence from the yacht fast enough to prove they were involved in the Rainbow Warrior bombing, and the Australian police had to release them. A minor charge might have held then long enough to process the forensics, and I’d have a hard time arguing that wouldn’t have been a good outcome.
At the very least, I have a hard time believing that Haneef’s relative suddenly decided to try and murder people without indications over a long time that he held extreme beliefs and was prepared to use violence in support of them. In which case giving him a mobile phone was stupid on several levels.
And, in Australia at least, his medical career is over. Innocent or not, patients are going to shun him. It would be unfortunate, but it is a problem his relative has caused.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
What an odd co-incidence that this ( innocent according to some bloggers) Indian Muslim whose close relation and flatmate had tried to murder hundreds of innocent people should suddenly try to flee back to India on a one way ticket. Temporary detainment in Guatamino seems appropriate to me.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
i tell tim, some consoilation i suppose for being inside,