Learn from the mistakes of others

Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Australia AG considering sedition laws revision
Jaime Jansen at 12:10 PM ET

[JURIST] Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock [official website] said Tuesday that he is willing to revise [ABC World Today transcript] Australia's new sedition laws [summary], particularly the use of the word "sedition," after the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) [official website] released a discussion paper [text] Monday arguing that "sedition" implies a threat to free speech [press release; ALRC sedition materials]. He indicated, however, that he will not act on the ALRC's recommendation until it submits a final report.

The ALRC, the independent federal statutory agency charged with conducting official inquiries into areas for possible legal reform, rejected an argument put forth by Australia's three major news organizations that the sedition laws dealing with the incitement of terrorism are excessive and should not be applied to major media outlets [JURIST report]. The ALRC nonetheless suggested changing the term "sedition" to "offenses against political liberty and public order," while also recommending 24 other changes to clearly state that the sedition laws only target people seeking to overthrow the government through violence, and not members of the arts community using political satire. Australia's sedition laws were enacted late last year as part of sweeping anti-terrorism legislation [JURIST report].

The Australian has more.

Sedition is an ancient offence (and a reasonably consistent one until very recently) that consisted of covert behaviour aimed at inciting others to overthrow of the public good order or disruption of good governance. So encouraging others to do something.

Treason consisted of acts directed to undermining your lawful government's capacity to wage war on the enemy. That is, you directly assist the enemy in some way.

Australia's new sedition laws seem to conflate the two in ugly ways. No only that, but the language is very broad - potentially capturing a huge range of normally acceptable democratic activities.

What has been more difficult to understand - as a lawyer - is why the law was brought into effect in the first place while intending to have the efficacy and even appropriateness of the law [and the offence of sedition itself] examined by the ALRC only a few months later. The ALRC did not take long to pencil in it's immediate concerns (as much of the legal profession generally across Australia had done back when the law was first leaked out of the secret process it was originally floated within and we got our first look at it).

Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Australia AG considering sedition laws revision
Jaime Jansen at 12:10 PM ET

[JURIST] Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock [official website] said Tuesday that he is willing to revise [ABC World Today transcript] Australia's new sedition laws [summary], particularly the use of the word "sedition," after the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) [official website] released a discussion paper [text] Monday arguing that "sedition" implies a threat to free speech [press release; ALRC sedition materials]. He indicated, however, that he will not act on the ALRC's recommendation until it submits a final report.

The ALRC, the independent federal statutory agency charged with conducting official inquiries into areas for possible legal reform, rejected an argument put forth by Australia's three major news organizations that the sedition laws dealing with the incitement of terrorism are excessive and should not be applied to major media outlets [JURIST report]. The ALRC nonetheless suggested changing the term "sedition" to "offenses against political liberty and public order," while also recommending 24 other changes to clearly state that the sedition laws only target people seeking to overthrow the government through violence, and not members of the arts community using political satire. Australia's sedition laws were enacted late last year as part of sweeping anti-terrorism legislation [JURIST report].

The Australian has more.

Sedition is an ancient offence (and a reasonably consistent one until very recently) that consisted of covert behaviour aimed at inciting others to overthrow of the public good order or disruption of good governance. So encouraging others to do something.

Treason consisted of acts directed to undermining your lawful government's capacity to wage war on the enemy. That is, you directly assist the enemy in some way.

Australia's new sedition laws seem to conflate the two in ugly ways. No only that, but the language is very broad - potentially capturing a huge range of normally acceptable democratic activities.

What has been more difficult to understand - as a lawyer - is why the law was brought into effect in the first place while intending to have the efficacy and even appropriateness of the law [and the offence of sedition itself] examined by the ALRC only a few months later. The ALRC did not take long to pencil in it's immediate concerns (as much of the legal profession generally across Australia had done back when the law was first leaked out of the secret process it was originally floated within and we got our first look at it).