Hi y'all - time to fight that sedition bill - this legislation threatens all
of us in Australia - there's a legal opinion/response at the bottom -

Cheers

A


From: Opencity <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:15:58 +1100
To: Press Release 8 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RealTime emailout: Oppose sedition provisions

Dear Colleague

In Sydney on 31 October 2005, at an extraordinary general meeting arranged
by filmmaker Robert Connelly of Arena Film, writers, artists, filmmakers,
publishers (including Open City, publisher of RealTime), composers and their
organisations unanimously opposed the sedition provisions in the
Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005.
 
We are concerned that they will unreasonably erode freedom of speech and
artistic expression, which have long been essential to the Australian way of
life.
 
We are convinced that it is unnecessary to add these provisions to existing
laws and we call urgently for the sedition provisions to be removed for the
following key reasons.
 
Sedition laws are: 
 
1. Unnecessary - current law already prohibits inciting crimes, membership
and funding of terrorist organisations, and racial vilification.
2. Dangerous - by their nature they are political and have been used against
Gandhi, Mandela, and the supporters of the Eureka Stockade.
3. Too broad ­ a person or an organisation could be charged with sedition
without, as existing law requires, having urged force or violence.
4. Unfair - the sedition laws reverse the onus of proof. The accused will be
assumed guilty and will need to prove their innocence. It will be almost
impossible for them to do this under the proposed legislation.
 
The proposed sedition laws threaten Australia¹s proud tradition of
protecting free speech and promoting democracy.
 
The organisations and individuals supporting this statement have issued a
press release and will be making a formal submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Committee.

Attached is a detailed response to the sedition clauses in the bill by Chris
Connolly of the Law Faculty UNSW. We urge you to read this, not least
section 3, the informative account of the history of sedition offences.

If you wish to add your name or that of your organisation to this protest,
please send name and contact details direct to:

Tamara Asmar <[log in to unmask]>

We are sure you understand the urgency of this situation and encourage you
to act promptly.

Yours sincerely,

Virginia and Keith

Virginia Baxter, Keith Gallasch
Managing Editors
RealTime


------ End of Forwarded Message

Proposed Offences for Sedition in the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005

Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee

27 October 2005

Chris ConnollyLaw FacultyUniversity of NSW


The Sedition Act undermines the right of free speech, which has ever been
justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.
James Madison, 1878

Overview
The proposed Anti Terrorism Bill 2005 seeks to update and reinstate
ìseditionî as a major offence in Australian law, purportedly as a means of
targeting activity that is generally linked to terrorism, but lacks a
specific link to a single terrorist act.
This is a dangerous proposal that re-awakens an ancient and oppressive law
in Australia. Sedition law is the sleeping giant of authoritarianism, and it
has the potential to inhibit free speech and restrict open democracy. This
submission presents an analysis of the sedition proposals in the Bill, and
recommendations about their removal or amendment.
The proposed Bill contains three types of rules on sedition:
Sedition and treason offences that require an element of force or violence
(generally updated from existing law).
New sedition and treason offences that do not require an element of force or
violence ñ they simply require support of ìany kindî for ìthe enemyî. These
are new offences and the burden falls on the accused to mount a defence
based on very limited ìgood faithî exceptions.
A slightly expanded test for banning an ìunlawful associationî based on a
very broad definition of ìseditious intentionî. No force, violence or
support for the enemy is required, and no ìgood faithî defence is available.
In addition, the proposals increase the penalty for the main sedition
offences from three to seven years.
The proposals open the door for a wider range of sedition prosecutions and a
broad test for banning associations.
The proposals reawaken a law that has an appalling track record, here and
abroad, of abuse by Government - especially at times of national stress.
This submission argues that the proposals should be abandoned on the
following grounds:
Sedition laws are not required to tackle terrorism as we already have
appropriate laws in place to prohibit racial vilification, terrorist acts,
terrorist funding and membership of (banned) terrorist organisations;
Sedition laws have no place in a modern democracy as they inhibit free
speech and restrict open democracy ñ essentially delivering a victory to
those who oppose democratic values;
Sedition laws have an appalling history of abuse by Governments and they
politicise the criminal law ñ there are no other (active) laws in Australia
that are so heavily politicised;
The sedition laws, as proposed, introduce new offences where there is no
link to force or violence, reversing the history of this area of law in
Australia;
The sedition laws, as proposed, place an undue burden on the accused to
prove their innocence, thus reversing the accepted onus of proof in
Australia criminal law;
The sedition laws, as proposed, provide only a very limited defence of good
faith in particular circumstances, which does not include a general good
faith defence that might cover general discussion, education, journalism,
artistic expression, satire and other forms of free speech; and
The sedition laws, as proposed, carry an excessive punishment for activity
that might only amount to encouragement or support rather than the actual
carrying out of an act.
In addition to these general objections to the proposed sedition laws,
extreme concern needs to be raised regarding the proposed ability to ban
ìunlawful associationsî for expressions of a broadly defined ìseditious
intentionî. These are of great concern for the following reasons:
The ability to ban ìunlawful associationsî does not require any link
whatsoever to force, violence or assisting the enemy;
The ability to ban ìunlawful associationsî is not subject to any ìgood faith
defenceî or humanitarian defence;
The ability to ban ìunlawful associationsî as set out in the 2005 proposal
appears to have no link at all to terrorism; and
The ability to ban ìunlawful associationsî is linked to an archaic
definition of ìseditious intentionî that covers practically all forms of
moderate civil disobedience and objection (including boycotts and peaceful
marches).
The practical impact of the ìunlawful associationsî proposal would be to
provide the Government with the ability to ban any organisation that opposes
a Government decision and encourages protest or dissent that falls outside
the law, no matter how slight or technical the breach. There is absolutely
no link between this section of the proposal and terrorism.
This submission recommends the abandonment of these proposals.
Alternatively, some further detailed restrictions on their use are proposed,
to ensure a fairer balance between anti-terrorism measures and free speech.
Proposed offences
The proposed Bill contains three types of rules on sedition:
Sedition and treason offences that require an element of force or violence
(generally updated from existing law).
New sedition and treason offences that do not require an element of force or
violence ñ they simply require support of ìany kindî for ìthe enemyî. These
are new offences and the burden falls on the accused to mount a defence
based on very limited ìgood faithî exceptions.
A slightly expanded test for banning an ìunlawful associationî based on a
very broad definition of ìseditious intentionî. No force, violence or
support for the enemy is required, and no ìgood faithî defence is available.
These three types of sedition laws replace old sedition laws in Sections 24A
to 24E of the Crimes Act with new sections in the Criminal Code (sedition
and treason), and update Section 30A of the Crimes Act (unlawful
associations).
Sedition offences requiring force or violence
The proposals create a new section of the Criminal Code - 80.2 Sedition.
This creates three sub-offences:
Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government
A person commits an offence if the person urges another person to overthrow
by force or violence:
(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth.
Urging interference in Parliamentary elections
A person commits an offence if the person urges another person to interfere
by force or violence with lawful processes for an election of a member or
members of a House of the Parliament.
Urging violence within the community
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race,
religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against
another group or other groups (as so distinguished); and
(b) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and
good government of the Commonwealth.
Each of these provisions requires the offender to encourage an act of force
or violence.
Sedition offences not requiring force or violence
The proposals expand the new section of the Criminal Code - 80.2 Sedition -
through the inclusion of two further offences that do NOT require a link to
force or violence. These proposed offences are:
Urging a person to assist the enemy
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means
whatever, an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of
war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph 80.1(1)(e)
to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.
Urging a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means
whatever, an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities against the
Australian Defence Force.
Unlawful associations with ìseditious intentionsî
Section 30A of the Crimes Act allows the Attorney General to apply to ban an
ìunlawful associationî, including:
ìAny body of persons, incorporated or unincorporated, which by its
constitution or propaganda or otherwise advocates or encourages the doing of
any act having or purporting to have as an object the carrying out of a
seditious intentionî.
The proposed new definition of seditious intention is a slightly updated
version of the archaic definition of seditious intention described in the
ìHistory of Sedition offencesî chapter below. It reads:
(3) In this section, seditious intention means an intention to effect any of
the following purposes:
(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(b) to urge disaffection against the following:
(i) the Constitution;
(ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;
(iii) either House of the Parliament;
(c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to
procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth;
(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so
as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Defences
A defence is available to the two offences relating to assisting the enemy
if it relates to conduct by way of, or for the purposes of, the provision of
aid of a humanitarian nature. However, the onus of proof is on the accused
to show that their conduct meets this defence.
There is also a defence available for all of the proposed sedition offences
(except for banning unlawful association with seditious intentions) for acts
done in good faith. Again, the onus of proof is on the accused to show that
their conduct meets this defence.
Good faith is defined as applying to a person who:
(a) tries in good faith to show that any of the following persons are
mistaken in any of his or her counsels, policies or actions:
(i) the Sovereign;
(ii) the Governor-General;
(iii) the Governor of a State;
(iv) the Administrator of a Territory;
(v) an adviser of any of the above;
(vi) a person responsible for the government of another country; or
(b) points out in good faith errors or defects in the following, with a view
to reforming those errors or defects:
(i) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(ii) the Constitution;
(iii) legislation of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory or another
country;
(iv) the administration of justice of or in the Commonwealth, a State, a
Territory or another country; or
(c) urges in good faith another person to attempt to lawfully procure a
change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth, a State, a
Territory or another country; or
(d) points out in good faith any matters that are producing, or have a
tendency to produce, feelings of ill-will or hostility between different
groups, in order to bring about the removal of those matters; or
(e) does anything in good faith in connection with an industrial dispute or
an industrial matter.
There are no defences available to the provisions on banning unlawful
association for seditious intentions.
History of sedition offences
International history
Sedition has a long and undignified history. It is hard to go past the Bible
for the most famous of sedition trials. Both Barabbas and Jesus faced
charges of sedition. The charges against Jesus were said to be at least in
part a result of his encouragement of others to refuse to pay taxes to Rome.
There are numerous other important figures in history who have been charged
and sometimes imprisoned for sedition, including both Ghandi and Nelson
Mandela.
The clear lesson from the history of sedition laws is that they are used
routinely by oppressive regimes, or are used by more liberal regimes at
times of great national stress. Their use is nearly always the subject of
considerable regret at a later date.
It is also difficult to find a single example of a sedition trial that
resulted in a useful long-term outcome for the ruling authorities. The
sedition charges are either the last desperate gasp of an authoritarian
regime (eg Ghandi) or the extreme and sometimes ludicrous result of a
regrettable moment in national history (eg McCarthyism).
In 2005, sedition is most often encountered as the desperate tool of
undemocratic regimes such as Zimbabwe and, on occasion, China. Sedition may
rear its head elsewhere, although it is probably used more sparingly than
people realise. For example, Singapore recently charged two Internet
bloggers with sedition, but it was the first use of the charge in Singapore
in more than thirty years.
Sedition in Australia
The somewhat sad history of sedition offences in Australia shows that the
crime has come in and out of fashion. There have been times when it has laid
dormant for decades, but in keeping with global experience, it has been used
at times of national stress.
Sedition charges were famously used against the rebels and their supporters
following the Eureka Stockade. Most charges were a mix of sedition and ìhigh
treasonî and almost all were unsuccessful (in jury trials). Some of the
rebel leaders such as Peter Lalor later became Members of Parliament and it
could be argued that many of the principles of democracy we enjoy today are
a result of their alleged sedition.
However, Henry Seekamp, the editor of the Ballarat Times was not so lucky -
he was jailed for six months for sedition for writing positively about the
Eureka Stockade rebels. One of the four articles on which he was convicted
contained the following prophetic words:
This league [the Ballarat reform league] is nothing more or less than the
germ of Australian independence. The die is cast, and fate has cast upon the
movement its indelible signature. No power on earth can now restrain the
united might and headlong strides for freedom of the people of this country
... The League has undertaken a mighty task, fit only for a great people ñ
that of changing the dynasty of the country.
The second significant use of the sedition provisions was to îshut downî the
Sydney arm of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in 1916. The IWW was
a left wing labor organisation opposed to conscription and Australiaís
involvement in World War 1. Twelve of its members were imprisoned for
sedition and membership of an unlawful association.
Monty Miller was probably the best-known of the accused. He was 77 at the
time and was sentenced to six months' hard labour. He was freed after a
public outcry and by 1920 all twelve men had been released.
The final significant case of sedition was against the General Secretary of
the Australian Communist Party, Laurence Louis Sharkey (Lance Sharkey) in
1949. He was jailed for three years for sedition after answering a
hypothetical question from a journalist about whether the Australian public
would welcome the Soviets here.
His answer (according to the journalist) included the following words:
If Soviet Forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian
workers would welcome them. Australian workers would welcome Soviet Forces
pursuing aggressors as the workers welcomed them throughout Europe when the
Red troops liberated the people from the power of the Nazis. Invasion of
Australia by forces of the Soviet Union seems very remote and hypothetical
to me. I believe the Soviet Union will go to war only if she is attacked,
and if she is attacked I cannot see Australia being invaded by Soviet
troops. The job of Communists is to struggle to prevent war and to educate
the mass of people against the idea of war. The Communist Party also wants
to bring the working class to power, but if fascists in Australia use force
to prevent the workers gaining that power, Communists will advise the
workers to meet force with force.
Sharkey pleaded not guilty, noting amongst other things that he was
responding to a question over the telephone by a persistent journalist,
rather than addressing a crowd. However, he was convicted by a jury and the
conviction was affirmed by the High Court in 1949.
The case is still relevant today as it was based on a definition of
ìseditious intentionî that is virtually identical to the current proposal.
In addition, a series of ìgood faithî defences were available to Sharkey
(again very similar to the current proposals), but none of these saved him
from conviction. Anti-communist sentiment was strong ñ at sentencing the
trial judge described Sharkey as ìexercising an evil disproportionate
influence over the life of this countryî.
Sharkey was charged under Section.24 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914.
The Section was amended slightly in 1986 to require an additional element ñ
ìthe intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public
disturbanceî There have been no prosecutions since that amendment.
In 1991 the Fifth Interim Report of the Committee of Review of Commonwealth
Criminal Law (the Gibbs Report) proposed that the Act should be amended to
repeal sedition and to rely on the crimes of incitement and treason where
there was a clear intention of violent interference with the democratic
process. However, no amendment had been prepared until the current proposals
ñ and the current proposals are a more substantial revision of the sedition
laws than recommended by Gibbs ñ and largely contrary to the Gibbs
recommendations.
Overall, the history of sedition offences in Australia is fairly
unflattering. Their use against the Eureka Stockade Rebels in the 1850s,
left leaning anti-conscriptionists during World War 1, and communists in the
late 1940s is a fairly blunt reflection of the political stress of the day.
Concerns
This is a dangerous proposal that re-awakens an ancient and oppressive law
in Australia. Sedition law is the sleeping giant of authoritarianism, and it
has the potential to inhibit free speech and restrict open democracy.
This section sets out some key concerns with the proposals.
The proposed sedition laws are unnecessary
Sedition laws are not required to tackle terrorism as we already have
appropriate laws in place to prohibit racial vilification, terrorist acts,
terrorist funding and membership of (banned) terrorist organisations;
Ben Saul has noted:
Old-fashioned security offences [such as sedition] are little used because
they are widely regarded as discredited in a modern democracy that values
free speech. Paradoxically, the danger in modernising these offences is that
prosecutors may seek to use them more frequently, since they are considered
more legitimate. A better approach is to abandon archaic security offences
altogether in favour of using the ordinary criminal law of incitement to
crime, particularly since security offences counterproductively legitimise
ordinary criminals as "political" offenders. It is already possible to
prosecute incitement to the many federal terrorism crimes.
Unintended consequences
It is possible that the Government and Premiers did not intend to produce
laws that have such a broad reach. The fault could be in the drafting ñ
especially in the unlawful associations section.
Some guidance on the intention of the Government can be found in their
published statements regarding this section of the Bill. For example, the
Attorney Generalís Department provided the following information to The Age
newspaper, in defence of the sedition provisions:
Advocating a terrorist act (which includes directly praising such acts) is
only relevant to determining whether an organisation should be listed as a
terrorist organisation. Sedition is a different offence - it does not refer
to advocating terrorism. There have been sedition offences in the Crimes Act
for many years and they cover a person who engages in a "seditious
enterprise" with the intention of causing violence, or creating public
disorder or a public disturbance, or who writes, prints, utters or publishes
any seditious words with the intention of causing violence or creating
public disorder or a public disturbance.
The new offence will address problems with those who incite terrorism
directly against other groups within our community, including against
Australia's forces overseas and in support of Australia's enemies. The old
offences refer to incitement against classes of people and are a relic of
the Cold War.
It is possible that in attempting to ìupdateî sedition laws, they have been
drawn too broadly. It is possible that the Government did not intend to
create a provision that allows an organisation with no links to terrorism to
be banned as an ìunlawful associationî for basic acts or encouragement of
civil disobedience (eg boycotts or peaceful protests). Nevertheless, that
will be the result of the current drafting.
The above statement from the Attorney Generalís Department also contains an
implied criticism of existing sedition laws as relics of the Cold War.
Perhaps, then, the Government might accept an argument that the proposal
reawakens this Cold War relic and breathes new life into it, at the same
time as expanding the scope of sedition laws and reducing the available
defences. 
The unlawful associations provisions are too broad
Extreme concern needs to be raised regarding the proposed ability to ban
ìunlawful associationsî for expressions of a broadly defined ìseditious
intentionî. These are of great concern for the following reasons:
The ability to ban ìunlawful associationsî does not require any link
whatsoever to force, violence or assisting the enemy;
The ability to ban ìunlawful associationsî is not subject to any ìgood faith
defenceî or humanitarian defence;
The ability to ban ìunlawful associationsî as set out in the 2005 proposal
appears to have no link at all to terrorism; and
The ability to ban ìunlawful associationsî is linked to an archaic
definition of ìseditious intentionî that covers practically all forms of
moderate civil disobedience and objection (including boycotts and peaceful
marches).
The practical impact of the ìunlawful associationsî proposal would be to
provide the Government with the ability to ban any organisation that opposes
a Government decision and encourages protest or dissent that falls outside
the law, no matter how slight or technical the breach. There is absolutely
no link between this section of the proposal and terrorism.
Organisations that could be banned under this provision include the
following:
1. A trade union could be banned for advocating that the rulings of the new
fair pay commission be ignored (breach of IR laws) while appeals are lodged
or a campaign is conducted to reform the terms of reference of the
commission.
2. A small business tax reform association could be banned for advocating
slow payment of GST (breach of tax legislation) while they advocate for the
removal of red tape.
3. An environmental organisation could be banned for encouraging members to
march on a port (without permission) while they argue for a ban on the
import of radioactive waste.
4. An indigenous organisation could be banned for establishing a tent
embassy on Commonwealth land (trespass) while they lobby for a treaty.
No link to force or violence
Two of the proposed offences of sedition - the assisting the enemy
provisions - do not require any link to force or violence.
This reverses the history of sedition offences in Australia. In fact,
sedition offences have been strengthened on several occasions to ensure that
there was a link between the offence and force or violence. Originally
sedition laws were couched in terms of revolution or sabotage. A broader
interpretation of sedition was used to convict Sharkey and the IWW members,
but in 1986 the Crimes Act was amended to include a new test of the
intention of ìcausing violence, or creating public disorder or a public
disturbanceî.
It appears this 1986 test has been abandoned in the ìassisting the enemyî
sections of the proposed sedition laws. In those offences assistance can be
ìof any kindî, and there is no link to either the intention or result of
force or violence.
Defences are limited
A humanitarian defence is available for the ìaiding the enemyî provisions,
and a ìgood faithî defence is available for all the sedition offences except
the section on banning unlawful associations with seditious intentions (and
related offences, such as being an office holder of an unlawful association
or selling the publications of an unlawful association).
However, the ìgood faithî defence is extremely limited. It only appears to
apply to a very specific form of political debate where there is an
intention to point out a mistake by the Government.
Ben Saul has noted:
However, although these defences seem wide, in fact they largely protect
only political expression at the expense of other types of democratic
speech. In contrast, wider defences in anti-vilification law protect
statements made in good faith for an academic, artistic, scientific,
religious, journalistic or other public-interest purpose. Such statements
may not aim to criticise the mistakes of political leaders, the errors of
governments or laws, matters causing hostility between groups or industrial
issues. The range of expression worthy of legal protection is much wider
than these narrow exceptions.
It seems clear the ìgood faithî defence does not extend to the following
forms of free speech:
EducationThis might include teaching a class about the views of opponents,
conducting a student debate or conducting academic research.
JournalismThis might include presenting a variety of views during a
discussion, debate or interview, or straight reportage on the statements of
others.
Artistic expressionThis might include writing fiction, plays, films, music
and other artistic expression and interpretation of events and views.
No defences available for ìunlawful associationsî
The ability for the Attorney General to seek to ban an organisation under
the unlawful associations section of the Crimes Act (Section 30 A) for
seditious intentions is not subject to any defences whatsoever. This
includes a long list of related offences, such as being an office holder of
an unlawful association or selling the publications of an unlawful
association.
This may be a drafting error, or it may be the intention of the Government
to provide a broad power to ban unlawful associations.
It is important to remember that there are other provisions that provide the
Government with the ability to ban terrorist organisations. There is no
apparent link between Section 30A of the Crimes Act (as proposed) and
terrorism.
The onus of proof for parts of the proposed sedition laws is reversed
The limited defences that are available to those accused of sedition reverse
the onus of proof. An allegation of sedition requires the accused to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that they are acting in good faith. This is a rare
and dangerous reversal of Australiaís normal assumption that a person is
innocent until proven guilty, and that the burden for proving guilt falls on
the prosecution.
This ì:reversedî onus of proof was the subject of significant public outrage
and criticism during the recent trial of Schapelle Corby in Indonesia on
drug related charges. Yet we are being asked to accept this reversed onus of
proof under the proposed sedition laws in Australia.
The proposed penalties for sedition are too severe
The penalties for the proposed sedition offences are set at a maximum of
seven years imprisonment. This is despite the fact that no force or violence
is involved in some of the offences, and that the accused may not have
perpetrated any act themselves.
The ACT Director of Public Prosecutions has questioned the need for such
severe penalties:
It does not seem to me, however, that the penalty for sedition should be
increased as the essence of the offence consist only of urging another to
act, and does not involve any actual act of violence in itself.
Sedition laws are always politicised
Sedition laws have an appalling history of abuse by Governments and they
politicise the criminal law ñ there are no other (active) laws in Australia
that are so heavily politicised.
The Australian parliamentary research service has noted the constant
politicisation of sedition laws in Australia and elsewhere:
One should also not overlook the political nature of laws such as those
governing treason, or the related crimes of sedition and sabotage.
Australian communist Lawrence Sharkey was jailed for sedition during the
Cold War era. Nelson Mandela was charged with treason and later jailed for
sabotage. Their actions may well seem criminal to many at a certain point in
time, but their actions should be characterised as, most of all, political
actions. Their activities were first and foremost political activities.
In fact, sedition is a charge that is often used loosely in political
debates. Monarchists have been quick to remind Republicans that these arcane
laws are still on the books whenever a push for reform gains momentum. For
example, consider the following extract from Hansard regarding Paul
Keatingís proposal for a Republic:
The Prime Minister, the Australian Labor Party and their band of followers,
which it appears of late includes Sir Ninian Stephen, ought to be careful
about the way they handle debate on the flag. If they are not, they could be
in breach of the Crimes Act 1914, charged with sedition, and serve three
years' imprisonment.
Re-awakening dormant sedition laws in the name of anti-terrorism will make
these laws available for the broader inhibition of free speech and
repression of the normal democratic process.
Recommendations

Recommendation 1.
The proposed section on sedition laws should be abandoned. Terrorism should
continue to be tackled by existing laws, including:
Existing incitement to commit crime offences;
Existing terrorism related offences;
Existing provisions allowing terrorist organisations to be banned.


Recommendation 2 (Alternative)
If the Government insists on including a section on sedition offences in the
proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, substantial amendments will be required.
All sedition offences (not just selected offences) should require a link in
some form to force or violence;
All sedition offences (not just selected offences) should allow a broad good
faith defence;
The good faith defence should be expanded to include general public interest
free speech, including speech for academic, journalistic or artistic
purposes;
The onus of proof for the good faith and humanitarian defences should not be
reversed. The burden of proving an allegation of sedition should remain with
the prosecution, even where a good faith or humanitarian defence is raised.
The proposed section on banning ìunlawful associationsî for seditious
intentions should be deleted or amended to include a link to force or
violence and a broad good faith defence.
Penalties for sedition offences should be proportionate to the alleged harm.
The maximum penalty should remain at the current level - three years
imprisonment.
Appendix - Sedition in the Arts
The best known use of sedition laws to attack the arts community is, of
course, the period of McCarthyism in the USA in the 1950s. The arts
community, and Hollywood in particular, bore the brunt of successful and
unsuccessful allegations of ìUn-American Activitiesî, and some of the
greatest artists and thinkers of that time spent long periods out of work or
underground. These included Charlie Chaplin, Dashiell Hammett and Arthur
Miller.
However, sedition offences have been used as a tool to silence criticism for
many centuries, and the arts community have not been immune. It appears no
section of the arts community has remained untouched.
Some of the better known examples are listed below (with apologies for the
Anglo-Western-centric selection):
PoetsRobbie Burns was threatened with a charge of sedition in 1794. He is
rumoured to have ìtempered his writingî, and even written letters and
articles under assumed names as a result of the threat. William Blake was
charged with sedition in 1803 for exclaiming ìdamn the King and damn his
soldiersî in a heated moment (he was acquitted in 1804). John Keats was
never charged with sedition, but he was famously accused of ìlisping
seditionî by his critics.
NovelistsThe best-known novelist charged with sedition was Daniel Defoe,
author of Robinson Crusoe. His satirical piece mocking church and state -
The Shortest Way With Dissenters (1702) - saw him fined and imprisoned.
Salman Rushdie managed to fight off a private prosecution for sedition
following publication of The Satanic Verses in 1991.
PlaywrightsBen Jonson ñ famous for writing Volpone - was imprisoned in 1597
for sedition for writing The Isle of Dogs. In the 1660s MoliËre's satirical
play Tartuffe was banned by Louis XIV for sedition, although the ban was
later lifted.
CartoonistsHonore Daumierís famous cartoon Gargantua, a lithograph
depicting the French King as a corpulent giant feeding upon the riches of
his people, landed him in jail for 6 months on sedition charges in 1831.
Joseph Johnson ñ a cartoonist in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was charged and
ultimately exiled for sedition in the 1970s.
FilmmakersRobert Goldstein, the maker of The Spirit of '76, which depicted
British atrocities in the American Revolution, was charged under the US
Sedition Act 1917 during World War One. The judge was concerned that the
film might cause Americans ìto question the good faith of our ally, Great
Britainî. The filmmaker was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but was
released after 3 years. It was his only film.
 Fourth US President and ìfounderî of the US Constitution.
  Section 30A (b)
 Luke 23
 John 18:28-40