There's no place like home for the new anti-terrorism laws

[Guest guest]

A

Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:41:35 -0700 (PDT)

There's no place like home for the new anti-terrorism laws

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/theres-no-place-like-home-for-the-new-antiter\

rorism-laws/2005/10/21/1129775959082.html

 

 

There's no place like home for the new anti-terrorism laws

By Adele Horin

October 22, 2005

 

 

THE Federal Government's proposed anti-terrorism laws could be a

godsend in disguise for Australian families. I am thinking of families

who have lost authority over their fractious teenagers and are looking

for a way to keep them home.

 

When the kids get too old to be sent to the naughty corner, ignore

your protestations about the hours and the company they keep and the

unsavoury internet sites they favour, don't despair. I think I can see

a way under the proposed anti-terrorism laws for powerless parents to

enlist the help of the Australian Federal Police and ASIO.

 

The anti-terrorism laws may do little to prevent a hothead blowing up

Town Hall station. But they offer much scope in subduing insubordinate

teens who want to go clubbing at midnight instead of studying for

their exams.

 

Here's what I have in mind, having read a draft of the proposed laws

thoughtfully posted on the website of Jon Stanhope, the ACT Chief

Minister.

 

The best bet lies in the proposed control orders, which sound like

every parent's dream. Under these orders a person who has committed no

crime can have severe restrictions placed on their daily lives for a

year - or for those aged 16 to 18, for three months.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

 

You have to persuade the Federal Police your child may be thinking of

committing a terrorist act. No worries, considering you can doubtless

attest to his unsavoury friends, his late-night assignations and his

violent anti-government rhetoric.

 

The police can take away most of his rights and freedoms without

having to charge him with a crime. And nor must they tell him the

grounds for their actions (or that you dobbed him in).

 

A judge or magistrate must agree that a control order should be

imposed, but that should be easy. After all, under the proposed laws

your child has no right to put his case or appear in court or argue

that his unsavoury associates are ravers not radicals and that he

thinks suicide bombers are uncool.

 

No, the court will never get to hear the lad's side. On the say-so of

the Federal Police, the court is sure to approve a control order. How

could judges insist on a high level of proof if their dillying could

result in the Harbour Bridge being blown asunder?

 

And under the control order there is no end of restrictions that can

be placed on your wayward teen - a veritable cornucopia of punishments.

 

The court can order him never to leave the house, but that might be a

strain on the family. It might be better if the lad is ordered to wear

an electronic tag that tracks his every movement.

 

He can be ordered not to use the phone and never to associate with his

scruffy friends again - or to frequent those iniquitous binge-drinking

dens. And he can be forbidden to touch the internet. There's a long

list of specific restrictions laid out in the proposed law that will

ensure your child's life is controlled by a higher authority.

 

The anti-terrorism laws will bring to the home the discipline so sadly

lacking before. Your son may have flouted your pathetic curfews and

house rules, but now if he strays, makes a forbidden phone call or

clicks into the web, it's off to jail for five years, just like that.

 

Most people who care about civil liberties say these anti-terrorism

laws go too far in robbing us of the freedoms and legal protections

that distinguish democracies from dictatorships. Control orders are

not right, they say. It is wrong that a person should live in limbo

for 12 months, neither a criminal nor a free man, assumed guilty yet

charged with no crime, and with limited rights to get the order revoked.

 

The introduction of judicial review is a smokescreen by the

Government, these critics say, to give legitimacy to Big Brother

powers. In effect, no judge woken in the middle of the night, and

presented with one side of the argument, will demur.

 

If the police nab the wrong Ahmed or mistake the rantings of a

mentally ill person for terrorist diatribe, the innocent will suffer,

say the civil libertarians. And use of these techniques on the

alienated, the angry and the critics of Government policy will inflame

the very hostilities anti-terrorism laws are intended to douse.

 

But I say these laws have potential for desperate parents whose lives

are being ruined by ungrateful brats. And to those folk who believe

only terrorists have to fear the anti-terrorism laws, I say you have

failed to grasp their latent promise in curbing all manner of

trouble-makers.

 

But a word of warning to parents: if kids get smart, they will realise

they can use the new laws to their own ends. For them, the preventive

detention provisions offer much promise.

 

Under these provisions ASIO can detain a terrorism suspect for 14 days

- once the states' legislation is passed - without charge. Here's the

catch: the detainee is prevented by law from telling his family, or

anyone else, why he has suddenly disappeared. He can only report to

one family member that he is " safe " .

 

And once the kids learn of this, I can imagine the phone calls from

Byron Bay and Nimbin: " Dad, I'm safe; don't worry. But it's illegal to

tell you any more. "

 

A police state for one and all.