Recently in civil liberties Category
There's been stacks of media coverage over Bill Henson and some of his photographs, which a lot of people, Kevin Rudd included, are falling over each other to denounce as child pornography. That, and calling for Henson, the art gallery managers, and the parents of the models, to be jailed.
This is despite the fact that some of his earlier works, also depicting naked teenagers, have been featured in Commonwealth-supported exhibitions.
Censored versions of some of the photos have been published by News Ltd here. (If they are, in fact, child pornography, then I don't know why News Ltd thinks blacking out breasts makes them any more legal to publish/distribute!)
Some people are speaking out in support of Henson (also here), to varing degrees. Bernadette McMenamin, head of 'Childwise', describes the images as 'sexualised', plays the scare card by claiming that the images in question are 'probably already being circulated on pedophile internet sites', is 'pleased' that the police are taking action, and is waffling about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Hetty Johnson from Bravehearts -- who was the source of the police complaint which started the ball rolling -- has all but called Henson a paedophile, saying that he 'has a tendency to depict children naked'. The fact that the art gallery's website, which was hosted overseas, could not be shut down by the ACMA, has prompted her to call the ACMA a 'toothless tiger' and say that even works of art should be classified under the national scheme.
Both Bernadette McMenamin and Hety Johnson are also on Senator Conroy's 'Cyber-Safety Consultative Working Group'. Not that it's stacked with people who are likely to be pro-filtering (*cough*), but that's a different story.
I'll make other postings on the merits of the Art/Porn debate, if I have the stomach for it. What I want to discuss here is something that seems to have eluded the attention of the media, and perhaps the police. A SMH article makes reference to s 91G of the Crimes Act 1990 (NSW). It prohibits the 'use of children ... for pornographic purposes', which is defined as where the child is:
Anyhow, most of the media coverage is suggesting that these pictures may have been taken a long time ago. Apparently, Henson has been producing works of this type for over 20 years. Here's where things get tricky. Even assuming that the photos were taken in NSW, which seems to be in some doubt, s 91G of the Crimes Act 1990 has only been in its current form since 2004. Before 2004, the definition of using a child for pornographic purposes only covered situations where:
This is despite the fact that some of his earlier works, also depicting naked teenagers, have been featured in Commonwealth-supported exhibitions.
Censored versions of some of the photos have been published by News Ltd here. (If they are, in fact, child pornography, then I don't know why News Ltd thinks blacking out breasts makes them any more legal to publish/distribute!)
Some people are speaking out in support of Henson (also here), to varing degrees. Bernadette McMenamin, head of 'Childwise', describes the images as 'sexualised', plays the scare card by claiming that the images in question are 'probably already being circulated on pedophile internet sites', is 'pleased' that the police are taking action, and is waffling about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Hetty Johnson from Bravehearts -- who was the source of the police complaint which started the ball rolling -- has all but called Henson a paedophile, saying that he 'has a tendency to depict children naked'. The fact that the art gallery's website, which was hosted overseas, could not be shut down by the ACMA, has prompted her to call the ACMA a 'toothless tiger' and say that even works of art should be classified under the national scheme.
Both Bernadette McMenamin and Hety Johnson are also on Senator Conroy's 'Cyber-Safety Consultative Working Group'. Not that it's stacked with people who are likely to be pro-filtering (*cough*), but that's a different story.
I'll make other postings on the merits of the Art/Porn debate, if I have the stomach for it. What I want to discuss here is something that seems to have eluded the attention of the media, and perhaps the police. A SMH article makes reference to s 91G of the Crimes Act 1990 (NSW). It prohibits the 'use of children ... for pornographic purposes', which is defined as where the child is:
The models in question weren't engaged in sexual activity, or being tortured. That leaves 'plac[ing] in a sexual context', which I doubt they were. I don't think the mere fact that they were naked means they're in a 'sexual context'; arguably the intent of Parliament was to require something more than mere nudity. If they wanted to proscribe nudity, they should have said so.
- 'engaged in sexual activity';
- 'placed in a sexual context'; or
- 'is subjected to torture, cruelty, or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context)'.
Anyhow, most of the media coverage is suggesting that these pictures may have been taken a long time ago. Apparently, Henson has been producing works of this type for over 20 years. Here's where things get tricky. Even assuming that the photos were taken in NSW, which seems to be in some doubt, s 91G of the Crimes Act 1990 has only been in its current form since 2004. Before 2004, the definition of using a child for pornographic purposes only covered situations where:
Fairly clearly, the subjects of these photos aren't 'engaged in activity of a sexual nature', nor are they in the presence of somebody who is. If the photos were taken before the 2004 amendments commenced, I think a prosecution in reliance on s 91G will fall on its arse.
- 'the child is engaged in activity of a sexual nature (for example, actual or simulated sexual intercourse or a striptease) for the purpose of the production of pornography'; or
- 'the child is in the presence of another person engaged in such an activity for that purpose.'
Hat tip to Pete Black, whose blog brought to my attention a story on the Times Online which he describes as 'a disturbing report on a new form internet censorship being proposed in the UK'. From the article:
Social networking sites will be required to remove material unsuitable for children, such as nude or violent images and comments, within 24 hours of receiving a complaint, under a tough new code for internet safety.
The Byron Review on e-safety, published yesterday, also recommends that search engines such as Google and Yahoo display a "safe search" button prominently on their home page, to filter out potentially harmful material when children search the web.
The report, by the clinical psychologist and writer Tanya Byron, also recommends that websites promoting suicide be closed, using existing laws on assisted suicide. Those that promote self-harm and eating disorders should also come under greater legal scrutiny.
Dr Byron, a mother of two, said yesterday: "Many parents seem to believe that when their child is online it is similar to them watching television. In fact it is more like opening the front door and letting your child go outside to play unsupervised."
Assuming that Byron's analogy is correct, if a parent opens the front door and lets their child go outside to play unsupervised, and something bad happens, is it the fault of the outside world or is it the fault of the parent?
Dumbing down the Internet to a level where it's supposedly 'safe for children' is not the answer. What's worse, is that this is merely one part of a disturbing trend of the abdication of parental responsability to the government. The Internet is supposedly harming children, so instead of parents supervising and educating their children, the government will tame the Internet. Children are too fat, so instead of parents controlling their children's diet, the government will ban advertising of junk food when they're likely to be watching television. The government isn't a babysitter and neither is the Internet!
The irony of this is palpable.. Labor have adopted the term 'clean feed' to describe their half-baked plan to force ISP-based Internet filtering upon us all. And yet the company peddling Internet filtering software from the website cleanfeed.com has banned the website for registered Australian political party One Nation for containing 'hate speech'. Screenshot:
You can verify this yourself on the cleanfeed.com website, using their 'test a site' facility on the front page.
But, there's a very serious side to this very funny example:
- Filtering products are inaccurate. There will always be overblocking and underblocking.
- Blacklists and categorisations of websites are subjective. Whether One Nation in fact engages in 'hate speech' is dependant on your point of view and there are arguments for and against.
- Government mandated filtering that has effects such as this may run into constitutional problems. We have an implied freedom of speech on political matters in Australia. If a government-mandated filtering system is going to block access to political websites -- especially websites of actual Australian political parties -- it would seem to be succeptable to a constitutional challenge.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the NSW Judicial Commission has rejected a complaint made by the head bureaucrat at the AG's department against a NSW judicial officer who found in a judgment that ASIO officers had unlawfully kidnapped and falsely imprisoned a suspect in a 'terrorism' case.
The news article, which gives details on the content of the complaint, says the complaint alleges that Adams J had made 'unjustified findings' which 'reflect adversely and very unfairly on the officers', and that '[t]he lack of concern the judge has shown for due process and natural justice in his comments about the officers' actions stand in complete contrast to the great care he took to determine that the officers had not complied with the applicable requirements.'
The grounds of the complaint are, and always were, bogus. Adams J's findings were entirely justified, there was plenty of evidence to support them. If those findings reflect adversely on the officers involved, then perhaps ASIO should stop kidnapping people. It should also be borne in mind that the identities of the ASIO officers were suppressed in the judgment -- all that the world at large knows is that ASIO officers B14 and B15 broke the law. Only people within ASIO or other government agencies who know the identities of B14 and B15 would know that they are the individuals who kidnapped Ul-Haque, and they're not likely to care.
As for the natural justice claim, even the news media can see the holes in that argument:
The news article, which gives details on the content of the complaint, says the complaint alleges that Adams J had made 'unjustified findings' which 'reflect adversely and very unfairly on the officers', and that '[t]he lack of concern the judge has shown for due process and natural justice in his comments about the officers' actions stand in complete contrast to the great care he took to determine that the officers had not complied with the applicable requirements.'
The grounds of the complaint are, and always were, bogus. Adams J's findings were entirely justified, there was plenty of evidence to support them. If those findings reflect adversely on the officers involved, then perhaps ASIO should stop kidnapping people. It should also be borne in mind that the identities of the ASIO officers were suppressed in the judgment -- all that the world at large knows is that ASIO officers B14 and B15 broke the law. Only people within ASIO or other government agencies who know the identities of B14 and B15 would know that they are the individuals who kidnapped Ul-Haque, and they're not likely to care.
As for the natural justice claim, even the news media can see the holes in that argument:
Late last year, the ASIO director-general, Paul O'Sullivan, complained the agents had not had a chance to rebut the charges. But the two ASIO officers - known as B15 and B16 - had in fact given evidence to Justice Adams, who found their testimony unconvincing and, at times, untruthful.They forgot to mention 'evasive', 'dishonest', and the other choice terms used by Adams J to describe the ASIO officer's evidence.
Today's issue of the 'Communications Day' newsletter (a very expensive trade newsletter, which has kindly given me a free trial subscription, because god knows I couldn't afford to buy it) contains a story which reads in part:
What Conroy describes as 'hysteria' has largely been the product of comments attributed to him and his spokespeople. A fair reading of those comments (e.g. 'filtering'; protecting children; blocking 'inappropriate' or 'offensive' content; the very use of the term 'clean feed'; etc) supports the inference that what Labor are proposing is a very wide-ranging filtering system based on content analysis of Internet material, rather than a more minimal solution such as a blacklist of confirmed child pornography. Indeed, the ability to 'opt-out' seems to be a key part of Labor's scheme -- and why on earth would they allow people to opt out of a blacklisting system that only targeted child pornography or other illegal content?
A fair reading of everything that Conroy and his spokespeople have said to date supports the conclusion that Labor have a much broader censorship scheme in mind -- one that could employ content analysis filtering which would block access to offensive/inappropriate material unless opted-out of. If this is in fact not what Labor have in mind, then their comments are equivocal at best, and at worst have unnecessarily caused the hysteria that they're now trying to quell.
Which brings me to my next point: if what me, EFA, and the media have been saying is 'hysteria', then why doesn't Conroy set the record straight now? If they know what they're proposing, intending, or considering implementing, why wait six weeks to tell us? The delay in announcing further details about their intentions will create the perception, rightly or wrongly, that they don't yet know what their intentions are. And if this is true, perhaps they shouldn't be making sweeping statements to the media which suggest a worst-case scenario?
In the absence of firm, announced details about Labor's intentions, the only thing that their critics can respond to is their comments to the media. The best way to quell the alleged hysteria is to release the details, and release them now. Then Labor's various critics can address the details of their plans, rather than what can be inferred from their published sound-bites.
Oh, and while we're on the topic of hysteria, ad hominem attacks such as "if people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree" aren't conducive to productive, reasoned debate, and arguably qualify as hysteria themselves.
Conroy promises to douse internet filter concernsThis raises a number of interesting points.
Communications minister Stephen Conroy will move to quell hysteria over internet content filtering plans and outline a full policy development strategy in late February.
...
Conroy's office confirmed yesterday that the minister will delay making more detail available until the IIA general meeting on February 21. He is expected to elaborate on ACMA's filtering trial to begin shortly in Tasmania, as well as a consultation and implementation timeline.
What Conroy describes as 'hysteria' has largely been the product of comments attributed to him and his spokespeople. A fair reading of those comments (e.g. 'filtering'; protecting children; blocking 'inappropriate' or 'offensive' content; the very use of the term 'clean feed'; etc) supports the inference that what Labor are proposing is a very wide-ranging filtering system based on content analysis of Internet material, rather than a more minimal solution such as a blacklist of confirmed child pornography. Indeed, the ability to 'opt-out' seems to be a key part of Labor's scheme -- and why on earth would they allow people to opt out of a blacklisting system that only targeted child pornography or other illegal content?
A fair reading of everything that Conroy and his spokespeople have said to date supports the conclusion that Labor have a much broader censorship scheme in mind -- one that could employ content analysis filtering which would block access to offensive/inappropriate material unless opted-out of. If this is in fact not what Labor have in mind, then their comments are equivocal at best, and at worst have unnecessarily caused the hysteria that they're now trying to quell.
Which brings me to my next point: if what me, EFA, and the media have been saying is 'hysteria', then why doesn't Conroy set the record straight now? If they know what they're proposing, intending, or considering implementing, why wait six weeks to tell us? The delay in announcing further details about their intentions will create the perception, rightly or wrongly, that they don't yet know what their intentions are. And if this is true, perhaps they shouldn't be making sweeping statements to the media which suggest a worst-case scenario?
In the absence of firm, announced details about Labor's intentions, the only thing that their critics can respond to is their comments to the media. The best way to quell the alleged hysteria is to release the details, and release them now. Then Labor's various critics can address the details of their plans, rather than what can be inferred from their published sound-bites.
Oh, and while we're on the topic of hysteria, ad hominem attacks such as "if people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree" aren't conducive to productive, reasoned debate, and arguably qualify as hysteria themselves.
It's pretty sad when an Australian political debate starts looking like an episode of South Park, but that's what is happening at the moment. Conroy's (fairly transparent) attempts to make Labor's Internet censorship plans bulletproof by playing the 'child pornography' card are having some effect, at least amongst 'save the children' campaigners.
The article Filters needed to battle child porn, appearing in yesterday's Australian IT, and written by Bernadette McMenamin, the CEO of 'Child Wise', begins: [emphasis added throughout]
Supporting freedom of speech as I do, I support McMenamin's right to express her opinion on this important issue, as it is my right to respond by labelling her position even more extreme and fanatical than those of the non-decent human beings (such as myself) that she is attacking.
McMenamin's position seems to be that the government should do anything which might have the effect of reducing the trade in child pornography, regardless of whether it will be effective, whether it is technically possible, the monetary cost, the practical consequences, and the cost to the civil liberties of every person living in Australia. A weighing of the benefits against the costs isn't required; we're talking about children here! If you don't support it, then you hate children.
Which brings me back to South Park. In episode 30 of South Park, called 'Gnomes', a television advertisement is aired in favour of Proposition 10 on a forthcoming public balot. Proposition 10 would kick a giant chain of coffee stores (Harbucks) out of town, and the South Park kids are enlisted for pro-proposition 10 propaganda. I couldn't find a video of the advert, but the audio is available here (have a listen!).
The TV ad concludes with 'Prop 10 is about children. Vote yes on prop 10, or else you hate children. You don't hate children.... do you?'
This is what McMenamin's argument boils down to. If you oppose Labor's censorship plans, you're in favor of child pornography, therefore you're a despicable human being and hate children. I think perhaps she needs to realise that Labor's proposal is not about child pornography, and accept that playing the 'child pornography' card does not exempt any proposal from an evaluation on its merits and weighing of the benefits against the costs.
Distribution of child pornography is an abhorrent crime, to be sure, but even accused child pornographers enjoy the same civil liberties as every other person in this country. If you subscribe to McMenamin's theory that no price is too high to reduce the prevalence of child pornography, perhaps we should do away with some other civil liberties while we're at it. After all, people accused of child pornography offences don't really deserve the right to a presumption of innocence. Making the government prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt isn't really necessary, and requiring the police to have search warrants before they kick in somebody's door looking for child pornography is just unnecessary paperwork. This is about saving the children! Sacrifices need to be made! I don't understand how any decent human being could support a child pornographer being innocent until proven guilty!
As I conclude this little exercise of my free speech rights, rights which McMenamin, Conroy, and their ilk seem only too happy to sacrifice on the altar of 'saving the children', I'll point out that McMenamin's own website -- www.childwise.net -- would probably be blocked by the automated content filters that she is so keen to force upon the rest of us. It contains references to delightful terms such as 'child prostitution', 'child pornography', 'child porn', 'sex with children', 'pedophile', 'child sex tourism', 'sex trafficking', 'child sex trade', and so forth. Content filters aren't good at determining context; such as telling the difference between a website which is promoting 'child sex tourism' and a website which opposes it.
But I'm sure that having her own website blocked to most Australians is a small price to pay. After all, this is about saving the children, people!
The article Filters needed to battle child porn, appearing in yesterday's Australian IT, and written by Bernadette McMenamin, the CEO of 'Child Wise', begins: [emphasis added throughout]
IT is beyond belief that some representatives of the Australian internet service provider industry are reluctant to install filters that would prevent access to child pornography.There you have it. If you oppose Labor's plan, you are not a decent human being, or you might be an 'extreme civil rights group' (I'm guessing she means EFA), or you care more about profits than the protection of children. If not for the fact that I'm a fairly thick-skinned individual, who happens to care about civil liberties such as freedom of speech, I'd probably sue McMenamin for defamation.
Surely any decent person would do all they can to protect children. However there exists a small but vocal group in Australia which is opposed to the federal Government's proposal to introduce mandatory ISP filtering to block child pornography and other illegal content.
...
In 2005 the United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children revealed that 40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children. The most disturbing trend is that the demand for sexual images of babies and toddlers and images of children being sexually tortured is increasing. This is the reality and I cannot comprehend how any decent human could oppose any initiative that aims to curb this evil trade.
...
So what could possibly be the arguments against ISP filtering from elements of the ISP industry and extreme civil rights groups. Well they have stated that it may "slow down the internet", "is expensive to use" and the clean feed system which is being used in the United Kingdom has faults, despite blocking access to hundreds of thousands of child pornography images. Do they care more about profits than the protection of children?
Supporting freedom of speech as I do, I support McMenamin's right to express her opinion on this important issue, as it is my right to respond by labelling her position even more extreme and fanatical than those of the non-decent human beings (such as myself) that she is attacking.
McMenamin's position seems to be that the government should do anything which might have the effect of reducing the trade in child pornography, regardless of whether it will be effective, whether it is technically possible, the monetary cost, the practical consequences, and the cost to the civil liberties of every person living in Australia. A weighing of the benefits against the costs isn't required; we're talking about children here! If you don't support it, then you hate children.
Which brings me back to South Park. In episode 30 of South Park, called 'Gnomes', a television advertisement is aired in favour of Proposition 10 on a forthcoming public balot. Proposition 10 would kick a giant chain of coffee stores (Harbucks) out of town, and the South Park kids are enlisted for pro-proposition 10 propaganda. I couldn't find a video of the advert, but the audio is available here (have a listen!).
The TV ad concludes with 'Prop 10 is about children. Vote yes on prop 10, or else you hate children. You don't hate children.... do you?'
This is what McMenamin's argument boils down to. If you oppose Labor's censorship plans, you're in favor of child pornography, therefore you're a despicable human being and hate children. I think perhaps she needs to realise that Labor's proposal is not about child pornography, and accept that playing the 'child pornography' card does not exempt any proposal from an evaluation on its merits and weighing of the benefits against the costs.
Distribution of child pornography is an abhorrent crime, to be sure, but even accused child pornographers enjoy the same civil liberties as every other person in this country. If you subscribe to McMenamin's theory that no price is too high to reduce the prevalence of child pornography, perhaps we should do away with some other civil liberties while we're at it. After all, people accused of child pornography offences don't really deserve the right to a presumption of innocence. Making the government prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt isn't really necessary, and requiring the police to have search warrants before they kick in somebody's door looking for child pornography is just unnecessary paperwork. This is about saving the children! Sacrifices need to be made! I don't understand how any decent human being could support a child pornographer being innocent until proven guilty!
As I conclude this little exercise of my free speech rights, rights which McMenamin, Conroy, and their ilk seem only too happy to sacrifice on the altar of 'saving the children', I'll point out that McMenamin's own website -- www.childwise.net -- would probably be blocked by the automated content filters that she is so keen to force upon the rest of us. It contains references to delightful terms such as 'child prostitution', 'child pornography', 'child porn', 'sex with children', 'pedophile', 'child sex tourism', 'sex trafficking', 'child sex trade', and so forth. Content filters aren't good at determining context; such as telling the difference between a website which is promoting 'child sex tourism' and a website which opposes it.
But I'm sure that having her own website blocked to most Australians is a small price to pay. After all, this is about saving the children, people!
The Australian has a good article today about Senator Conroy's marvelous plans to censor the intarwebs, to save the children of course. Or is it about stopping child pornography? I wish they'd make up their minds.
In any case, the article is very good, but the claims made and quotes from people in it are just screaming out for rebuttal, so here is the article (indented and in italics), with my commentary dispersed throughout (not indented):
In any case, the article is very good, but the claims made and quotes from people in it are just screaming out for rebuttal, so here is the article (indented and in italics), with my commentary dispersed throughout (not indented):
BROADBAND Minister Stephen Conroy faces an uphill struggle in his plans to increase internet censorship by boosting the official blacklist from a puny 1000 web pages to many millions of banned websites.I'm not sure Conroy wants to increase the size of the official blacklist per se, I think his current plan is to force content-based filtering upon everybody.
Industry commentators say the task may be beyond the capabilities of filtering mechanisms and procedures, and it would be impossible to block all such material.I agree completely.
The scope of the problem is, however, immense. Policing child pornography alone could be beyond present capabilities.
Continue reading The Australian article on Conroy's censorship plans.
It's been a busy week.
The media have gone into a feeding frenzy over Labor's election commitment to 'save the children' by forcing ISP-based Internet filtering upon everybody in the country, unless they specifically opt out of it. Nothing in particular seems to have precipitated this feeding frenzy. I have it on good faith from Senator Conroy's office that there have been no new announcements (apart from some new comments to the media equating freedom of speech with watching child pornography), and nothing has changed since they announced this before the election. It looks like one journo decided to write a follow-up article, which started a chain-reaction of scathing scorn and condemnation.
I find it somewhat amusing how media outlets feed of each other in this way. For instance, I can pretty much guarantee that if I'm quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald about anything remotely topical and newsworthy, I'll be getting phone calls from ABC radio stations throughout the country wanting to do interviews. It's somewhat ironic that an EFA media release doesn't have the impact that one story on smh.com.au does.
Anyhow, the media are really laying the boot into Labor's plans. They weren't this critical back in 1999 when the Coalition were proposing more or less the same thing. Perhaps with FOI becoming a waste of time and money, civil liberties increasingly going down the tubes, and the growth of a culture of secrecy at the Commonwealth level, the media outlets are taking the adverse potential of this scheme seriously.
A random assortment of media coverage:
The media have gone into a feeding frenzy over Labor's election commitment to 'save the children' by forcing ISP-based Internet filtering upon everybody in the country, unless they specifically opt out of it. Nothing in particular seems to have precipitated this feeding frenzy. I have it on good faith from Senator Conroy's office that there have been no new announcements (apart from some new comments to the media equating freedom of speech with watching child pornography), and nothing has changed since they announced this before the election. It looks like one journo decided to write a follow-up article, which started a chain-reaction of scathing scorn and condemnation.
I find it somewhat amusing how media outlets feed of each other in this way. For instance, I can pretty much guarantee that if I'm quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald about anything remotely topical and newsworthy, I'll be getting phone calls from ABC radio stations throughout the country wanting to do interviews. It's somewhat ironic that an EFA media release doesn't have the impact that one story on smh.com.au does.
Anyhow, the media are really laying the boot into Labor's plans. They weren't this critical back in 1999 when the Coalition were proposing more or less the same thing. Perhaps with FOI becoming a waste of time and money, civil liberties increasingly going down the tubes, and the growth of a culture of secrecy at the Commonwealth level, the media outlets are taking the adverse potential of this scheme seriously.
A random assortment of media coverage:
ITWire, New Australian Government tries totalitarian Net censorshipEFA's press release is here and an earlier analysis of their policy is here.
The Australian, Net-nanny state worth watching
AFP, Australia's plans to filter Internet under fire
Australian IT, Labor online strategy slammed
Al Jazeera (yes, seriously), Rudd's 'clean web' plan criticised
The Courier Mail, Censorship must be left to parents
ITWire, One small but significant step towards Internet censorship
Scopical, Plan to filter Australian internet a 'dud' says EFA
IT News, EFA attacks Labor's 'clean-feed' Internet proposal
Today's Sydney Morning Herald has an editorial piece on the complaint against Justice Adams which I blogged about yesterday. It reads, in part:
AUSTRALIA'S security establishment, having been weighed in the balance and found wanting, now wants to place its heavy hand on one side of the balance, to tilt it in its favour. That is the conclusion Australians would be entitled to draw from yesterday's Herald report that the head of the federal Attorney-General's Department has complained to the NSW Judicial Commission about Justice Michael Adams's verdict in the case of Izhar ul-Haque. As we have already stated, the decision of Justice Adams of the NSW Supreme Court in the ul-Haque case showed the legal system operating as intended. His judgment revealed that Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was using the charges against Mr ul-Haque as a threat to induce him to become their spy. Justice Adams was rightly scathing about the illegality of the ASIO agents' behaviour during Mr ul-Haque's arrest and interrogation. It appears that His Honour's decision, and the clarity of his views, forcefully expressed, about their cavalier approach to due process, have perturbed the security establishment - not just ASIO but also the Federal Police and, it appears, senior bureaucrats in the Attorney-General's Department, which oversees both agencies.
They appear, though, not to be worried, as they should be, by content of the judge's criticisms, but by the fact that he dared to make them at all. Instead of insisting Australia's security agencies observe the law, the head of the Attorney-General's Department, Robert Cornall, is seeking to punish the judge who pointed out how they had broken it. Is this an attempt to cow the judiciary, in security-related cases, into toeing the line and suspending the rules in the interest of national security? It would not be surprising if it were. The Commissioner of the Federal Police, Mick Keelty, has already suggested courts need to change their attitude to evidence if crimes, particularly acts of terrorism, are to be prevented - rather than punished after they have happened.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that 'Australia's top legal bureaucrat', the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, had made a formal complaint to the Judicial Commission of NSW against Justice Michael Adams.
Adams J is the judge who previously held that two ASIO agents had unlawfully kidnapped and falsely imprisoned a young Sydney medical student who was suspected of terrorism offences.
This comes after the head of ASIO publicly defended the behavior of the officers involved 'by saying the agency has had to adapt to new laws after September 11.' Stuff and nonsense. Adams J held that the ASIO officers knew what they were doing was illegal and they did it anyway.
I'm not surprised that O'Sullivan is defending the jackbooted thugs he employs, but I am surprised that he hasn't come up with some more plausible excuses. Playing the 9/11 card is just weak.
Adams J is the judge who previously held that two ASIO agents had unlawfully kidnapped and falsely imprisoned a young Sydney medical student who was suspected of terrorism offences.
This comes after the head of ASIO publicly defended the behavior of the officers involved 'by saying the agency has had to adapt to new laws after September 11.' Stuff and nonsense. Adams J held that the ASIO officers knew what they were doing was illegal and they did it anyway.
I'm not surprised that O'Sullivan is defending the jackbooted thugs he employs, but I am surprised that he hasn't come up with some more plausible excuses. Playing the 9/11 card is just weak.
