Mustafa Malik, a Washington journalist, Daily Star, October 7:
"Human rights groups around the world are concerned that the UN resolution calling on governments to punish 'incitement to terrorist acts' will further stifle the voices of the oppressed, especially because the world body has failed to define what terrorism is.
"This resolution has, says Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth, 'made it easy for abusive governments to invoke the resolution to target peaceful political opponents, impose censorship and close mosques, churches and schools.'
"The draft resolution that sought to define terrorism fell through in the UN General Assembly mainly because the United States and Britain opposed clauses that would permit "resistance against occupation" and call for the examination of the "root causes" of terrorism. America and Britain, representing the European Union, apparently were saying that if you have the guns you can not only invade and occupy countries, but should be able to rewrite political science, too."
Australia is also currently engaged in a "terrorism" debate. The Howard government insists that new legislation is necessary to safeguard citizens against the terrorist threat. The details of the proposed laws are extreme and even some Liberals are questioning its severity. The Age's Michelle Grattan rightly argues that the government cannot be trusted on this issue:
"It's easy for critics to argue that opponents of the anti-terrorism laws are exaggerating their misuse. This overlooks history and human nature. This Government's treatment of asylum seekers, and its patent disregard for the rights of [Guantanamo detainees] David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib do not encourage giving it the benefit of the doubt."
An Australian citizen should have the right to openly and strongly oppose government policy. Being against the Howard government's foreign policy is but one of these issues, not least the folly of the Iraq campaign. Who will define what "encouraging someone to fight for the enemy" means?
I was against the Iraq war. I was not therefore supporting Saddam or his regime. I have a sneaking suspicion that the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" ideology is creeping into Australia. It should be vigorously opposed.
"Human rights groups around the world are concerned that the UN resolution calling on governments to punish 'incitement to terrorist acts' will further stifle the voices of the oppressed, especially because the world body has failed to define what terrorism is.
"This resolution has, says Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth, 'made it easy for abusive governments to invoke the resolution to target peaceful political opponents, impose censorship and close mosques, churches and schools.'
"The draft resolution that sought to define terrorism fell through in the UN General Assembly mainly because the United States and Britain opposed clauses that would permit "resistance against occupation" and call for the examination of the "root causes" of terrorism. America and Britain, representing the European Union, apparently were saying that if you have the guns you can not only invade and occupy countries, but should be able to rewrite political science, too."
Australia is also currently engaged in a "terrorism" debate. The Howard government insists that new legislation is necessary to safeguard citizens against the terrorist threat. The details of the proposed laws are extreme and even some Liberals are questioning its severity. The Age's Michelle Grattan rightly argues that the government cannot be trusted on this issue:
"It's easy for critics to argue that opponents of the anti-terrorism laws are exaggerating their misuse. This overlooks history and human nature. This Government's treatment of asylum seekers, and its patent disregard for the rights of [Guantanamo detainees] David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib do not encourage giving it the benefit of the doubt."
An Australian citizen should have the right to openly and strongly oppose government policy. Being against the Howard government's foreign policy is but one of these issues, not least the folly of the Iraq campaign. Who will define what "encouraging someone to fight for the enemy" means?
I was against the Iraq war. I was not therefore supporting Saddam or his regime. I have a sneaking suspicion that the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" ideology is creeping into Australia. It should be vigorously opposed.
14 Comments:
Great post Antony. The failure to define "terrorism" both hear and abroad is scary ,to say the least.
It is appropriate to remember the crackdown on dissent in Melbourne, on a sept 11, before that date became well stuck in every memory.
Scott Parkin has been forgotten by most. Guess we all are asked to be a big cheering party ,while world leaders pretend that they are safeguarding democracy,at any one of their parties.
Thanks for link to Harpers', Mr Fish. Just about to listen ,the editor, on Auntys', "Big Ideas".
Should be a tonic.
Thanks.
The lack of true debate about these 'anti-terrorism' measures is highly disturbing. We shouldn't trust govt, ever. Or at least be sceptical about everything they say. Govts lie, that's what they do.
Hardly news to many...
Sadly, Antony ,it seems like "the many" have not got it yet.
Anyway,a great site and lurking,daily. Despite the crap you seem to endure.
Excellent point, Shab. I'm not really convinced about Antony's anti-government utterances, either.
I fail to see how one can claim to hail from the moderate left and also claim to be anti government, considering that leftists rely on governments to engineer their perfect societies. No wonder they're in a constant state of disappointment.
Who organises the workers, DBO? Anyway, you're referring to hardcore Marxists, by the sound of it. A confused, dying breed. They're the ones with this idea about workers owning the means of production and the state eventually withering away after the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The vast majority of leftists are generally in favour of more government, not less. Do you deny this, DBO?
The UN has failed to pass a definition of Terrorism because the Arab nations insist that the Palestinians have the right to do anything to kill Jews in the name of the liberation that the Arab nations themselves refused to grant them.
Do you expect the moral nations to allow that?
No, the International Court of Justice, addamo. And let's face it - it's a court many ignore as a matter of course. Every country in the world realises that national sovereignty trumps the jurisdiction of a court like the ICJ every time.
That's the problem with international law - it doesn't really exist.
Indeed, the Islamic nations have banded together to add items that are not terrorism in an attempt to defang the US and allow them free rein to terrorize their own people as they have done since 700 CE.
And James is correct about the ICJ.
Moral Nations? Name one.
DBO:
Are we talking in theory or practice? Experience has comprehensively shown the latter. I don't know of a single socialist regime that has maintained a "small government". Socialism is a weed - when it spreads through the halls of power it inevitably colonises the entire society until someone kills it off. So do some flavours of conservatism, incidentally.
Nope. Didn't think anyone could. At least with a straight face anyway. Peace your fellow Human
Human said...
Moral Nations? Name one.
Saudi Arabia. They rule by their god's decrees. That is the definition of a moral nation, is it not?
Your morals (which are suspect anyway) are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
No that is not the definition. Yes, I guess people who actually promote peace are suspect to you. If my morals are irrelevant why ask and continue to attack me?
All you are is a person filled with such hate for humanity that you are blinded. You are a very sick person. I urge you to get professional help as soon as possible.
Some links to help you http://www.mentalhealth.asn.au/
http://www.mentalhealthvic.org.au
http://www.aasw.asn.au
Peace. Your Fellow Human
human : the more I see of you, the stranger you get.
Post a Comment
<< Home