Nov. 30th, 2005 10:14 pm
The NSW Writers' Centre Terror Forum
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
klwardLast night, the House of Representatives passed the Draft Anti Terrorism Bill 2005 with the sedition provisions intact, despite the recommendation of the bipartisan Parliamentary Committee that they be removed. Last night, I attended a forum at the NSW Writers' Centre on the possible impact of the new terror laws on writers, journalists and publishers. That the forum filled the double room at the Centre and overran its advertised two hours will, I hope, surprise no one. For those of you who did not make it, I will now list the speakers and summarise their arguments. My usual disclaimer: these are my recollections, which may contain inaccuracies and are certainly interpretations, although I have attempted to check facts wherever possible.
All of this will make much more sense if you have in fact read the draft legislation, which is readily available as a PDF from here, for example, with much other interesting and useful material:
http://www.bobbrown.org.au/300_campaigns_sub.php?deptItemID=30
The sedition provisions are clearly marked in the contents.
The forum was opened by the chairman of the Writers Centre Management Committee, Angelo Loukakis, who speculated on the meaning of the word 'sedition'. Prior to this, he had thought it was something 18th century, possibly to do with sailors. He gave us the Oxford Dictionary definition - "conduct or language inciting people to rebellion or public disorder" - and pointed out that said volume notes its modern usage as rare.
He then introduced us to the Executive Director of the Writers Centre, Irina Dunn, who was to chair the evening. She began, "I'd like to welcome you all, and any ASIO agents present." She then introduced composer Martin Wesley-Smith and his associate Rosemary Dunlop. A composer? Seems once they started publicising the forum, the Writers' Centre were contacted by people working in other art forms who considered the proposed laws as relevant to themselves as to writers. In any case, what followed was the clarinet-and-multi-media presentation, "Weapon of Mass Distortion", which is practically indescribable and very, very good.
Ice well and truly broken, the first speaker took the stand. Each speaker spoke for 10 minutes, at the end of which time Irina rang a little bell used for a similar purpose at the Poetry Sprint, to get them to finish up.
Robert Pullen is a freelance writer presently on the Management Committee of the Australian Society of Authors. Mr Pullen pointed out that Australia has an inglorious history of sedition laws being used to gag the press and anyone else who tries to point out the failings of the government. He cited the case of Edward Smith, editor of the Sydney Monitor who came up against Governor Darling in the 1820s and spent years in gaol as a result - compounded by the fact he kept writing while imprisoned. He underlined the fact that, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, Australia has no Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of expression, and pointed out that under the laws as currently drafted, a case could be made against Henry Lawson's poem "Blood on the Wattle" as seditious material. But, in his opinion, it is not the high profile writers or journalists that will be targeted, at least to begin with. "Prosecutions will be made against unpopular and marginal people, not employees of Kerry Packer".
Liz Jackson, the presenter of ABC TV's "Media Watch" and award-winning journalist had two specific concerns re the vagueness of the proposed laws. At any moment, may journalists themselves in breech of any of these new laws? At present, no one really knows where the boundaries will be. And how can they report the laws themselves? New laws placing restrictions on reportage of anti-terrorist measures and anything that can be classed as "national security" have been coming in ever since 9/11. For instance, it is already a criminal offence to report that ASIO have issued a questioning warrant -- for the subject, their lawyer or any journalist. "It's not just the powers," she said, "but our capacity to monitor those powers that is at question."
Nick Parsons, chairman of Currency Press was concerned with the definition of 'seditious intention' and 'unlawful organisation.' The legislation as it stands will permit prosecution of criticism and satire, with the burden of proof that such is in good faith lying with the accused. The publisher or broadcaster that publishes/ broadcasts a text/speech labelled seditious is also at risk of criminal charges, and if the Bill goes through with the sedition provisions intact it will mean that every publisher will have to judge whether any text that comes before them is an acceptable risk. "The problem is the legislation is so broad it can capture all sorts of other people in the process, and once that power is available to the government it is very difficult to ensure that power will not be used, or misused."
Syed Atiq Ul Hassan, editor-in-chief of the Tribune International newspaper read out a statement which had much in common with the editorial "In the Making of New Face of Australia" currently available at http://www.tribune-intl.com/ . He emphasised that the introduction of these laws will change the face of Australia internationally and criticised Australia's coverage of international events as already seriously lacking. The proposed laws have the potential to influence and restrict the presentation of overseas news.
Ian Barker QC is a writer and, well. He was of the opinion that restricting him to ten minutes on this subject was a serious infringement of his right to free speech and took the bell into his own custody. He then began, "Australia should grow up and not be frightened by words." Sedition, he emphasised, made a crime of words. Since its inception in English law during Elizabethan times, it has always been an instrument of political oppression, aimed to catch troublemakers who have the sense to stop short of high treason. Further, in his opinion this legislation is badly drafted. "The draft person trying to cast a wide a net as possible, to the point where it is practically unintelligible -- at least, to me." He then graciously returned the bell to Irina.
Jack Herman, Executive Secretary of the Australian Press Council, has seen a change in that body's role since 9/11. More and more, instead of monitoring the behaviour of the press, they have been defending its basic freedoms. The Press Council has made a representation to Parliament concerning the proposed legislation, including the recommendation that the legislation have a three year sunset clause. Sedition, in his opinion, is meant to cover the question of incitement. But of what? Incitement to commit violence is already a criminal offence, as is forming a conspiracy to do so. The proposed laws catch the expression of opinions that don’t have to relate to violence at all. They attack the basic ethics of journalism: that reporting an event is in the public interest is no defence. They also remove the confidentiality of sources. Sedition is thought crime.
Chris Nash, Director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism recommended people to their website, which covers the situation in greater detail then he could in ten minutes: http://www.acij.uts.edu.au/ . (NB. This link contains papers by Chris Nash and Ian Barker QC on which their talks were based; also Media Watch's own research into the matter. I can only recommend them.) He cited the recent deportation of activist Scott Parkins as an example of the power of existing legislation, and how it could be used by different departments (in this case DIMIA and ASIO) to co-ordinate their activities. In his opinion, the key thing is that the definition of terrorism throughout the existing and proposed legislation varies and is incredibly broad. It criminalises actions that fall far short of the catastrophic events that provoked the legislation. He predicted it would be first used against the anti-globalisation movement and the anti-war movement. We're in for a witch hunt.
Lawrence Gibbons, CEO of the Alternative Media Group and publisher of The Sydney City Hub, asked why Phil Ruddock should censure journalists when they can be made to censor themselves? The proposed legislation gives the government the power to prosecute journalists for reporting news the government does not want reported and criticising the government, and we are expected to accept that government's assurance that they won't use it! There followed a horrific recitation of journalists around the world who have been recently killed, imprisoned or persecuted under similar laws in other countries, capped off with a list of people who have been arrested for their blogs under Singapore's sedition laws.
Peter Manning is adjunct Professor of Journalism at UTS and a former head of news and current affairs at both the ABC and Channel Seven. "I don’t see in Australia a free, critical press taking on the government. I think they are pathetic." In his opinion, we already have a repressive government and have been experiencing it for years and years. He reminded the audience that when the Howard government first came to power, it immediately targeted universities and the ABC. The Australian Research Council is a more recent casualty, what was once an independent body for the assessment of grants being co-opted by the government -- and there has been a notable cut in grants to the Humanities. When public submissions and public demonstrations are ignored, we do not have a democracy. Democracy is now a neo-conservative buzzword.
The forum was then thrown open to questions from the audience, many of whom had their own stories to tell and opinions to add. The spectre of changes to our cross media ownership laws was raised. The evening concluded with the screening of a short film, "The Ball" by Annie Slater, featuring Max Gillies as John Howard, to ease the tension and allow the speakers to exit.
I would like to convey my thanks to the NSW Writers Centre for organising this timely event.
All of this will make much more sense if you have in fact read the draft legislation, which is readily available as a PDF from here, for example, with much other interesting and useful material:
http://www.bobbrown.org.au/300_campaigns_sub.php?deptItemID=30
The sedition provisions are clearly marked in the contents.
The forum was opened by the chairman of the Writers Centre Management Committee, Angelo Loukakis, who speculated on the meaning of the word 'sedition'. Prior to this, he had thought it was something 18th century, possibly to do with sailors. He gave us the Oxford Dictionary definition - "conduct or language inciting people to rebellion or public disorder" - and pointed out that said volume notes its modern usage as rare.
He then introduced us to the Executive Director of the Writers Centre, Irina Dunn, who was to chair the evening. She began, "I'd like to welcome you all, and any ASIO agents present." She then introduced composer Martin Wesley-Smith and his associate Rosemary Dunlop. A composer? Seems once they started publicising the forum, the Writers' Centre were contacted by people working in other art forms who considered the proposed laws as relevant to themselves as to writers. In any case, what followed was the clarinet-and-multi-media presentation, "Weapon of Mass Distortion", which is practically indescribable and very, very good.
Ice well and truly broken, the first speaker took the stand. Each speaker spoke for 10 minutes, at the end of which time Irina rang a little bell used for a similar purpose at the Poetry Sprint, to get them to finish up.
Robert Pullen is a freelance writer presently on the Management Committee of the Australian Society of Authors. Mr Pullen pointed out that Australia has an inglorious history of sedition laws being used to gag the press and anyone else who tries to point out the failings of the government. He cited the case of Edward Smith, editor of the Sydney Monitor who came up against Governor Darling in the 1820s and spent years in gaol as a result - compounded by the fact he kept writing while imprisoned. He underlined the fact that, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, Australia has no Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of expression, and pointed out that under the laws as currently drafted, a case could be made against Henry Lawson's poem "Blood on the Wattle" as seditious material. But, in his opinion, it is not the high profile writers or journalists that will be targeted, at least to begin with. "Prosecutions will be made against unpopular and marginal people, not employees of Kerry Packer".
Liz Jackson, the presenter of ABC TV's "Media Watch" and award-winning journalist had two specific concerns re the vagueness of the proposed laws. At any moment, may journalists themselves in breech of any of these new laws? At present, no one really knows where the boundaries will be. And how can they report the laws themselves? New laws placing restrictions on reportage of anti-terrorist measures and anything that can be classed as "national security" have been coming in ever since 9/11. For instance, it is already a criminal offence to report that ASIO have issued a questioning warrant -- for the subject, their lawyer or any journalist. "It's not just the powers," she said, "but our capacity to monitor those powers that is at question."
Nick Parsons, chairman of Currency Press was concerned with the definition of 'seditious intention' and 'unlawful organisation.' The legislation as it stands will permit prosecution of criticism and satire, with the burden of proof that such is in good faith lying with the accused. The publisher or broadcaster that publishes/ broadcasts a text/speech labelled seditious is also at risk of criminal charges, and if the Bill goes through with the sedition provisions intact it will mean that every publisher will have to judge whether any text that comes before them is an acceptable risk. "The problem is the legislation is so broad it can capture all sorts of other people in the process, and once that power is available to the government it is very difficult to ensure that power will not be used, or misused."
Syed Atiq Ul Hassan, editor-in-chief of the Tribune International newspaper read out a statement which had much in common with the editorial "In the Making of New Face of Australia" currently available at http://www.tribune-intl.com/ . He emphasised that the introduction of these laws will change the face of Australia internationally and criticised Australia's coverage of international events as already seriously lacking. The proposed laws have the potential to influence and restrict the presentation of overseas news.
Ian Barker QC is a writer and, well. He was of the opinion that restricting him to ten minutes on this subject was a serious infringement of his right to free speech and took the bell into his own custody. He then began, "Australia should grow up and not be frightened by words." Sedition, he emphasised, made a crime of words. Since its inception in English law during Elizabethan times, it has always been an instrument of political oppression, aimed to catch troublemakers who have the sense to stop short of high treason. Further, in his opinion this legislation is badly drafted. "The draft person trying to cast a wide a net as possible, to the point where it is practically unintelligible -- at least, to me." He then graciously returned the bell to Irina.
Jack Herman, Executive Secretary of the Australian Press Council, has seen a change in that body's role since 9/11. More and more, instead of monitoring the behaviour of the press, they have been defending its basic freedoms. The Press Council has made a representation to Parliament concerning the proposed legislation, including the recommendation that the legislation have a three year sunset clause. Sedition, in his opinion, is meant to cover the question of incitement. But of what? Incitement to commit violence is already a criminal offence, as is forming a conspiracy to do so. The proposed laws catch the expression of opinions that don’t have to relate to violence at all. They attack the basic ethics of journalism: that reporting an event is in the public interest is no defence. They also remove the confidentiality of sources. Sedition is thought crime.
Chris Nash, Director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism recommended people to their website, which covers the situation in greater detail then he could in ten minutes: http://www.acij.uts.edu.au/ . (NB. This link contains papers by Chris Nash and Ian Barker QC on which their talks were based; also Media Watch's own research into the matter. I can only recommend them.) He cited the recent deportation of activist Scott Parkins as an example of the power of existing legislation, and how it could be used by different departments (in this case DIMIA and ASIO) to co-ordinate their activities. In his opinion, the key thing is that the definition of terrorism throughout the existing and proposed legislation varies and is incredibly broad. It criminalises actions that fall far short of the catastrophic events that provoked the legislation. He predicted it would be first used against the anti-globalisation movement and the anti-war movement. We're in for a witch hunt.
Lawrence Gibbons, CEO of the Alternative Media Group and publisher of The Sydney City Hub, asked why Phil Ruddock should censure journalists when they can be made to censor themselves? The proposed legislation gives the government the power to prosecute journalists for reporting news the government does not want reported and criticising the government, and we are expected to accept that government's assurance that they won't use it! There followed a horrific recitation of journalists around the world who have been recently killed, imprisoned or persecuted under similar laws in other countries, capped off with a list of people who have been arrested for their blogs under Singapore's sedition laws.
Peter Manning is adjunct Professor of Journalism at UTS and a former head of news and current affairs at both the ABC and Channel Seven. "I don’t see in Australia a free, critical press taking on the government. I think they are pathetic." In his opinion, we already have a repressive government and have been experiencing it for years and years. He reminded the audience that when the Howard government first came to power, it immediately targeted universities and the ABC. The Australian Research Council is a more recent casualty, what was once an independent body for the assessment of grants being co-opted by the government -- and there has been a notable cut in grants to the Humanities. When public submissions and public demonstrations are ignored, we do not have a democracy. Democracy is now a neo-conservative buzzword.
The forum was then thrown open to questions from the audience, many of whom had their own stories to tell and opinions to add. The spectre of changes to our cross media ownership laws was raised. The evening concluded with the screening of a short film, "The Ball" by Annie Slater, featuring Max Gillies as John Howard, to ease the tension and allow the speakers to exit.
I would like to convey my thanks to the NSW Writers Centre for organising this timely event.