Learn from the mistakes of others

JURIST: PAPER CHASE: Friday, September 09, 2005

Australian lawyers group opposes proposed terror laws as 'draconian'
Chris Buell at 3:51 PM ET

An Australian lawyers group is describing new anti-terrorism legislation proposed by Australian Prime Minister John Howard as "draconian" and has called on regional governments to reject it. The Law Society of New South Wales said Friday that the proposal threatened civil rights and Howard had failed to justify the expansion of police powers included in the legislation. The group called on New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma to oppose the federal government plan. After initially rejecting the inclusion of sunset provisions in the proposal, Howard appeared to take a step back Friday and leave open the possibility.
Read the Law Society of New South Wales news release.
The Australian has more.

Australia's prime minister has outlined proposals for tough new anti-terrorism laws which include tagging suspects and detaining them without charge.

Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says he does not believe the Federal Government's new counter-terrorism measures are extreme and could lead to Australia becoming a "police state". Proposed measures include 14 days of detention without charge and monitoring suspects with a tracking device.

Law Council of Australia calls the proposal Un-Australian.

At the end of the day, there are limits to what freedoms we will give up in the war on terror.

At least, I certainly hope so ...

JURIST: PAPER CHASE: Friday, September 09, 2005

Australian lawyers group opposes proposed terror laws as 'draconian'
Chris Buell at 3:51 PM ET

An Australian lawyers group is describing new anti-terrorism legislation proposed by Australian Prime Minister John Howard as "draconian" and has called on regional governments to reject it. The Law Society of New South Wales said Friday that the proposal threatened civil rights and Howard had failed to justify the expansion of police powers included in the legislation. The group called on New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma to oppose the federal government plan. After initially rejecting the inclusion of sunset provisions in the proposal, Howard appeared to take a step back Friday and leave open the possibility.
Read the Law Society of New South Wales news release.
The Australian has more.

Australia's prime minister has outlined proposals for tough new anti-terrorism laws which include tagging suspects and detaining them without charge.

Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says he does not believe the Federal Government's new counter-terrorism measures are extreme and could lead to Australia becoming a "police state". Proposed measures include 14 days of detention without charge and monitoring suspects with a tracking device.

Law Council of Australia calls the proposal Un-Australian.

At the end of the day, there are limits to what freedoms we will give up in the war on terror.

At least, I certainly hope so ...

here in australia, we do not have a bill or rights. or any comprehensive statement of individual and/or collective rights. our constitution provides very few guarantees for us, the people. unlike the usa or canada. indeed a great many industrialised democracies. practically all of our legal rights are set out in subordinate legislation. and further complicate dby the federal-state-territory distribution of powers and responsibilities.

the many arguments for and against a bill of rights in australia have been neatly summarised elsewhere by one of our high court justices, justice michael kirby (an internationally respected human rights jurist).

into this mess, we have the notion of the universal id card as a panacea for all manner of ills and wrongs. some of which arise because we lack a definitive statement of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of individuals in our society.


mr howard, 'our' prime minister briefly supported a call from a state premier to introduce a national id card.

the age has since reported that the (federal) govt rules out national id card scheme.


as a bit of background, when a previous government suggested intorducing such a system, among it's loudest detracters was mr howard.

it's a very curious thing to see how easily even politicians are affected by their own efforts to induce short-term memory in the population.

here in australia, we do not have a bill or rights. or any comprehensive statement of individual and/or collective rights. our constitution provides very few guarantees for us, the people. unlike the usa or canada. indeed a great many industrialised democracies. practically all of our legal rights are set out in subordinate legislation. and further complicate dby the federal-state-territory distribution of powers and responsibilities.

the many arguments for and against a bill of rights in australia have been neatly summarised elsewhere by one of our high court justices, justice michael kirby (an internationally respected human rights jurist).

into this mess, we have the notion of the universal id card as a panacea for all manner of ills and wrongs. some of which arise because we lack a definitive statement of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of individuals in our society.


mr howard, 'our' prime minister briefly supported a call from a state premier to introduce a national id card.

the age has since reported that the (federal) govt rules out national id card scheme.


as a bit of background, when a previous government suggested intorducing such a system, among it's loudest detracters was mr howard.

it's a very curious thing to see how easily even politicians are affected by their own efforts to induce short-term memory in the population.