My post is to do with the new terrorism laws passed in many countries, but I will concentrate on my own.

The Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 (Revised) is legislation intended to hamper the activities of any potential terrorists in Australia. It was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament on 6 December 2005.

The previous Anti-terrorism Act was passed in 2004.

My source is wikipedia.

Summary of changes

* Potential for preventive detention: short term detention for named individuals: without evidence; and without criminal involvement; the detainee may be interrogated by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO); disclosing that an individual has been so detained or interrogated is, in almost all circumstances, a crime.
* Control orders: Potential for almost unlimited restrictions on named individuals: freedom of movement; freedom of association (including one’s lawyer); banning the performing of named actions and owning named items, including actions and things necessary to earn a living; unlimited requirements to be, or not to be, at specified places at any or all times of the day and week; wear a tracking device; and including encouragement to submit to re-education. These restrictions are referred to as “control orders”, and may be granted for a period of one year before review.
* Significant restrictions on the right of any citizen to express certain opinions: including criticism, or “urging disaffection”, of the sovereign, the constitution, the government, the law, or ‘different groups’; exemptions may exist where the target of criticism is agreed to be ‘in error’; exemptions appear to exist where the claim is that a feature of a group of people is in some way offensive to the mainstream of society; onus of proof of goodwill is on the defendant – the presumption is not of innocence.
* It becomes a crime, punishable by life imprisonment, to recklessly provide funds to a potential terrorist: funds include money and equivalents and also assets; it is not necessary that the culprit know the receiver is a terrorist, only that they are reckless about the possibility; it is not even necessary that the receiver is a terrorist, only that the first person is reckless about the possibility that they might be.
* Police can request information from any source about any named person: any information about the person’s travel, residence, telephone calls, financial transactions amongst other information; professional privilege does not apply; it can be an offence to disclose that such documents have been obtained.
* A legislative provision for ‘hoax offences’ will create a more serious charge for people who cause chaos for the public and emergency services by dreaming up devastating terrorist-inspired hoaxes.

Let’s be clear. I am not a supporter of terrorism, but these laws have led to a lot of mistakes and injustices. I’m not a lawyer, but the whole principle of Habeas Corpus is missing here.

As far as I know a “suspect” can be detained without a lawyer and without anyone knowing, not even family. This is a breach of human rights and in my opinion has achieved what terrorism hasn’t been able to do: it has limited the so-called freedom that the Western countries are so keen on protecting from terrorism. Now, terrorism is not new. So why have these laws been enacted? To restrict the rights of a country’s own citizens. To keep them scared. To discriminate against Muslims.