Saturday 27th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

the danger of extremist ideologues .....

the danger of extremist ideologues .....

 

from Crikey .....

Why do we need to further strengthen terror laws?

Greg Barns writes:

Who has Mr Rudd's Attorney-General, Robert McClelland been talking to? Where did he get the wacky and dangerous idea that he needs to further strengthen Australia's already sweeping and inherently unfair anti-terror laws?

Mr McClelland told the Australian Strategic Policy Institute last night that he wants to introduce a law to make it an offence to attempt to induce others to commit acts of political violence.

One of those he has spoken with, he admitted, was "Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister with responsibility for National Security, Professor Jayakumar, on enhancing social cohesion and resilience in order to lessen the appeal of extremist ideology."

Gee, that would have been informative given that Singapore's legal system and security apparatus is one of the most repressive and undemocratic in our region and you can be an "extremist ideologue" in Singapore simply by opposing the government.

Mr McClelland seems also to have been spooked by ASIO. His speech notes that he wants to enhance ASIO's capacity to "identify and engage with extremists, understand extremism, and counter extremist activities." But this is the same ASIO that was castigated by Justice Michael Adams in the New South Wales Supreme Court in 2007 for its treatment of a young Muslim man in Sydney's west, Izhar Ul-Haque.

Having collared him while he was on his way home one evening, ASIO officers, despite having no authority to do so, gave Mr Ul-Haque the distinct impression that he had to cooperate with them and answer their questions. If he did not, he reasonably assumed they might beat him up or take him to another sinister location.

Then the ASIO officers took him back to his home, kept him in his parents' bedroom and proceeded to interview him again until 3.45 the next morning. None of which impressed Justice Adams who observed, "To my mind, to conduct an extensive interview with the accused, keeping him incommunicado under colour of the warrant, was a gross breach of the powers given to the officers under the warrant."

This is the organization that Mr McClelland wants to engage with the community.

The proposal to make it an offence to attempt to induce others to commit acts of politically motivated violence is disturbing on a number of fronts. Firstly, the existing anti-terror laws define a terrorist organization so broadly, and any activities associated with it, that people who talk and think about politically motivated violence without doing anything more, can be prosecuted. This has happened in both the UK, Canada and Australia. Young Muslim men who have been associating with radical leaders have found themselves facing the courts and are now in some cases in jail.

But what is most disturbing about Mr McClelland's ill conceived proposal is that it could be used against environmental groups, unions or any other cause -- perhaps that is the Singapore's influence coming through!

Individuals and groups that are involved in violent clashes with the police at building sites, in street marches or in environmentally sensitive areas could find themselves labelled as terrorists. And what does it mean to induce someone? If I give someone a book on radical freedom fighter movements in South America and it inspires that person to commit an act of violence, is it seriously being suggested I am committing a criminal offence?

And of course Mr McClelland wants to beef up already scary anti-terror laws and ASIO and police powers without pushing harder for a charter of rights. He has said little or nothing about that, and insiders say he won't be cutting anything up until after the 2010 election.

Greg Barns appeared for one of the accused in the Melbourne terrorism trial in 2008.

the value of role models .....

from Crikey .....

Why are we seeking terrorism advice from Singapore?

Greg Barns writes:

The man with whom Attorney-General Robert McClelland recently met to discuss anti-terrorism strategies, the Singaporean Minister for Security Professor Jayakumar, is not a big believer in universal human rights.

In defending his country's policies of detention without trial, restrictions on freedom of speech and arbitrary arrests of political opponents, Professor Jayakumar told an International Bar Association conference in 2007 that "it is not possible to have a universal prescription when applying the rule of law. These issues have to be determined according to the social, cultural and political values of each society."

In a speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Tuesday, McClelland said he had "recently held talks with the Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister with responsibility for National Security, Professor Jayakumar, on enhancing social cohesion and resilience in order to lessen the appeal of extremist ideology."

Professor Jayakumar has, for over 25 years, been one of the leading enforcers of Singapore's draconian legal system. He entered politics in 1980 as a member of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) and in 1981 was appointed Minister for Law, a position he held until last year. He was also Minister for Home Affairs for a number of years. In these roles, Jayakumar was responsible for such instruments as the administration of Singapore's notorious Internal Security Act (which allows for detention without trial), the death penalty and the prosecution of political opponents.

Back in 1987, Jayakumar was vigorously defending the arrest of over 20 lawyers, social workers and Catholic Church-linked activists who were accused of being "members of a dangerous Marxist conspiracy bent on subverting the PAP ruled government by force, and replacing it with a Marxist state". When the arrests provoked international uproar Jayakumar simply said, "for critics abroad, if you want to understand the action, you must also understand Singapore's unique circumstance and problems". After eight of those detained complained they had been tortured by police, the Singapore government had them rearrested a year later.

And Jayakumar is not shy in defending the Internal Security Act. He told an international law conference in 1994 that it was necessary for "vicious gangsters and notorious drug traffickers" because there is no point giving them a trial as "no-one dares to testify."

During the 1980s and 1990, Jayakumar, along with his government colleagues, used defamation and libel suits to crush the sole Opposition member of the Singaporean Parliament, JB Jeyaretnam. In 1997, Jayakumar, initiated a defamation action against Jeyaretnam and 12 leaders of the opposition Workers Party. The idea was to bankrupt the party and its officials. The proceedings were condemned by Amnesty International, the International Bar Association and host of regional human rights organisations.

As recently as 2006, Jayakumar was part of the Singaporean government that arrested another opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, who, as Human Rights Watch said, "was arrested on November 23, 2006 for speaking publicly without a permit on April 22, 2006 in opposition to the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).

Singaporean authorities for years have relied on repressive laws to jail and bankrupt Chee, secretary-general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Since 1999, the authorities have jailed Chee on three other occasions for violating the city-state's laws restricting public speech and assembly."

Professor Jayakumar is an eminence grise of the Singaporean State. He has been a willing and enthusiastic proponent and prosecutor of serial repression of political opponents, and the right of individuals to hold diverse views. He is on the record as believing that governments can undermine or simply abolish fundamental rights like the right to due process, whenever the circumstances suit.

This is not a person from whom our Attorney-General should be taking advice on anything.