The Federal Government has just issued a discussion paper, proposing a change to the current terrorism laws. Though this new proposal is a bit of a mixed bag.
The outline of the proposal is
- to allow police to conduct a raid on the grounds of suspicion without a warrant being granted by a judge
- make it more difficult for suspects to get out of jail on bail
- have a cap of 8 days for suspected terrorists to be held without charge
- make it a crime to urge attacks on someone based on their nationality or religion.
- make terrorism hoaxes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
The last three points appear to have tangible benefits of clamping down on crime and making the law more clear. However the first point can be highly questioned.
The current process of entering a property to search or raid on suspicion of terrorism (as well as other types of searches), is to go to a court and apply to get a warrant, which is issued by a judge. A warrant allows the police then to search, raid etc the area. This warrant is a level of security and scrutiny, which makes sure that the raid or search is conducted under enough evidence of suspicion and that there is reasonable cause. With terrorism laws, there needs to be less evidence or suspicion to conduct such a raid. But is these new measures going to be of any benefit in increasing our safety, or is it going to impinge on our rights, and open another avenue for corruption and abuse?
Without having to go to a judge and have a warrant issued, it enables a police squad to conduct a raid at their own discretion. This gives them a greater ability to act quickly, but is there such a need. All terrorism raids in Australia so far have been conducted through the process of getting a warrant, and there appears to be no "close call" situations that have arisen that would require such a drastic changing of the law.
Though without this safeguard in place (of getting a warrant), this proposed new law in the name of safety could just cause more harm and danger. It allows for more opportunities where our freedom and security can be taken away, as their are less checks and balances in place, which means there is more of an opportunity for wrong raids and searches to be conducted. It enables the police to make impulse raids, which are dangerous because it is typically not the terrorists who are caught, but innocent ethnics who are stereotyped as terrorist (Dr Hanneff). Any backlash can cause more trouble, as these communities attempt to defend themselves from persecution while the police (presumably) defend their actions. And furthermore it sets a precedence which allows the government or police to intervene more into our lives, in the name of terrorism and at the spur of the moment, without safeguards and proper checks being in place.
So it appears that while some of these proposed changes may bring many benefits to clarifying the law, taking away the requirement for police to get a warrant in order to conduct a raid (in the name of terrorism), is an impingement upon our civil rights and freedoms, as it only opens up another avenue for corruption, abuse and harm.
The discussion paper, outlining the proposed legal changes, is open for public discussion and comments until the 25th September.
The current process of entering a property to search or raid on suspicion of terrorism (as well as other types of searches), is to go to a court and apply to get a warrant, which is issued by a judge. A warrant allows the police then to search, raid etc the area. This warrant is a level of security and scrutiny, which makes sure that the raid or search is conducted under enough evidence of suspicion and that there is reasonable cause. With terrorism laws, there needs to be less evidence or suspicion to conduct such a raid. But is these new measures going to be of any benefit in increasing our safety, or is it going to impinge on our rights, and open another avenue for corruption and abuse?
Without having to go to a judge and have a warrant issued, it enables a police squad to conduct a raid at their own discretion. This gives them a greater ability to act quickly, but is there such a need. All terrorism raids in Australia so far have been conducted through the process of getting a warrant, and there appears to be no "close call" situations that have arisen that would require such a drastic changing of the law.
Though without this safeguard in place (of getting a warrant), this proposed new law in the name of safety could just cause more harm and danger. It allows for more opportunities where our freedom and security can be taken away, as their are less checks and balances in place, which means there is more of an opportunity for wrong raids and searches to be conducted. It enables the police to make impulse raids, which are dangerous because it is typically not the terrorists who are caught, but innocent ethnics who are stereotyped as terrorist (Dr Hanneff). Any backlash can cause more trouble, as these communities attempt to defend themselves from persecution while the police (presumably) defend their actions. And furthermore it sets a precedence which allows the government or police to intervene more into our lives, in the name of terrorism and at the spur of the moment, without safeguards and proper checks being in place.
So it appears that while some of these proposed changes may bring many benefits to clarifying the law, taking away the requirement for police to get a warrant in order to conduct a raid (in the name of terrorism), is an impingement upon our civil rights and freedoms, as it only opens up another avenue for corruption, abuse and harm.
The discussion paper, outlining the proposed legal changes, is open for public discussion and comments until the 25th September.
Links
No comments:
Post a Comment
Just to ensure we don't get spam, if you're making a comment on an old post it will need to be manually verified. Apologies if this takes 24 hours.