Melissa Parke ‘It is wrong to say that we have been complacent about security.’ I wish to start my comments on this bill by making reference to a case that came before the House of Lords in 2004 in relation to the detention of foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial under the UK’s Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, where Lord Hoffman, in a dissenting judgement, said: This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory. Tony Abbott made a speech to the IPA in 2012 in which he referred to the Coalition as the “freedom party”. However, as prime minister, Abbott now believes that “the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift” and that “there may be more restrictions on some so that there can be more protection for others.” I do not support a number of key elements in this bill, and I am aware there are further even more controversial bills coming before the parliament in the near future. I question the premise of the government’s general approach to this area of policy, which is essentially that freedoms must be constrained in response to terrorism; and that the introduction of greater obscurity and impunity in the exercise of government agency powers that contravene individual freedoms will both produce, and are justified in the name of, greater security. So far the debate on this issue has occurred within a frame that posits a direct relationship between, on the one hand, safety and civility in our everyday lives and, on the other, the powers that impinge upon and make incursions into individual freedom. If we want to continue our lives free from terrorism and orchestrated violence – so the argument goes – we have to accept shifting the balance between freedom and constraint away from the observance of basic rights and towards greater surveillance, more interference, deeper silence. Let me say that no one should be fooled into believing it is as simple as that. The truth is that the remarkable peace, harmony, and security we enjoy in Australia is in fact produced and sustained by our collective observance of freedoms and human rights, rather than existing in spite of such values and conditions. It is wrong to say that we have been complacent about security on two counts. Read More: theguardian/commentisfree/2014/oct/01/no-one-should-be-fooled-into-believing-security-is-as-simple-as-greater-surveillance-and-deeper-silence
Posted on: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 19:14:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015