Arguments Against The Counter-Terrorism Laws In Australia

The case of Thomas v Mowbray revolutionised and created a new, broad, perspective of the constitutional defence powers in regards to terrorism. This was the first case to reach the High Court on the validity of anti-terrorism measures that were recently introduced to Australia by the executive. Thomas made several submissions within this case, including that the defence power was limited to defence against threats from foreign states and that the words ‘naval and military’ present in the wording of the section confines the defence power to those activities and cannot underpin broader activities to protect the community. Unfortunately, on the first point there was a 6:1 majority that the law was valid under the power for threats both domestic and foreign. Kirby J dissent held that the Commonwealth had essentially failed to establish the factual basis that was needed to support its reliance on the defence power. Further, Kirby J concluded that the ‘facts underpinning the war on terror did not constitute hostilities for the purposes of the first limb of the defence power.’ The majority of the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-terrorism laws that allowed for the courts to impose control orders upon persons of whom they believed to pose a threat due to their connections to listed terrorist organisations, regardless of the possibly that some derogable rights maybe be overridden. The control order imposed on Thomas required him to remain in his residence

In 1978, on Monday the 13th of February, Australia faced what is believed to be its first experience of terrorism, when a bomb hidden in a bin outside the Sydney Hilton Hotel exploded, killing two council workers and a policeman (Cahill & Cahill, 2006). At the time, the hotel was hosting eleven heads of government who were in Sydney for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Cahill & Cahill, 2006). The Australian government reacted by mobilising the military, which came to be referred to as ‘Siege of Bowral’, that highlighted issues with the legislation that dealt with terrorism and how unprepared Australia was at responding to a terrorist event (Hancock, 2002). Over the following years, a range of legislation was enacted to handle matters associated with terrorism, laws such as allowing for defence to aid to the civil power, aviation and shipping safety, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, surveillance and intelligence services (Hancock, 2002).

The purpose of the text by John Howard is to inform Australian citizens of the current situation of the possible terrorist threat that may face Australia and requests that all people report suspicious behaviour of those around one another to the National security hotline in which, all reported behaviour will be investigated to protect Australia. Uniting the community as one, to help protect Australia. The letter containing information of the counter-terrorism also includes reassuring information about Australia’s ‘strong counter-terrorist capability’ and emergency preparedness, to avoid panic from the public. The purpose of the text is to acknowledge Australia’s vulnerability to international terrorism following

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas

As above demonstrates, this Act provides controversial, unusual and empowering duties to ASIO. The unusual and contentious background to this Act is highlighted by the long debate prior to its enactment. This act took almost the longest in history to enact- 15 months of parliamentary debate occurred, and after such scrutiny, a sunset clause of 10 years was applied to the act. The Coalition government gave reasoning for this 10 year clause as ‘there was still a threat of terrorist attack and it was undesirable to distract ASIO from its operations any more frequently than necessary’. Others said that terror is a ‘is a long-term, generational threat’ and the Australian citizens deserve to have protection from such threats. However, this threat

Law enforcement response to counter-terrorism fundamentally changed as a result of the unprecedented events of September 11th 2001 in New York and Washington (Kaldas, 2002, p61-62). This essay will examine how law enforcement has evolved in response to the changing nature of terrorism, with an emphasis on how this has impacted Australia. An analysis of arrests and subsequent

This has come from the Australian community and international human rights monitors who have stated that “There are still areas in which the domestic legal system does not provide an effective remedy to persons whose rights under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] have been violated … [Australia] should take measures to give effect to all Covenant rights and freedoms.” There hasn’t only been a recent push for a Bill of Rights, Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason wrote in 1997 that “Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state”. Brian Galligan who is an academic expert on citizenship stated that “the old confidence in the effectiveness of parliamentary responsible government and the common law for protecting human rights has been undermined by more realistic accounts of the weakness of parliament and the increasingly residual domain of common law compared with the plethora of statutory laws.” The answer to whether Australia needs to adopt a Bill of Rights in order to protect Australian citizens is simple… yes and

In fact, it appears as if every few months there is a new tragedy that has taken place in the name of terror. For example, in the past year alone major attacks have taken place in Paris, Belgium, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on and so forth. However, according to an article written by Margot Sanger-Katz titled, “Is Terrorism Getting Worse? In the West, Yes. In the World, No,” published on the New York Times website, statistically speaking, terrorism is not on the rise overall. According to the article, the number of deaths in Western countries that are a result of terrorism have seen an increase, as seen by the fact that, “the number of people who died in terror attacks in North American and Western Europe rose markedly in 2015, claiming more than 200 lives” (Sanger-Katz). Furthermore, interestingly enough, there were far more fatalities in western countries as a result of terrorism between the 1970s and 1980s, averaging between 400-600 deaths per year (Sanger-Katz). However, overall, terrorism itself isn’t as common in western countries as it is in other areas of the world. In fact, “More than three-quarters of all terrorism fatalities over the last five years took place in six countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen” (Sanger-Katz), according to the Global Terrorism Database. However, between 2014 and

2b) A terrorist attack falls under Division 101 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code) details terrorist act offences under Australian law.  This department administers this Act.

On September 11, 2001, 19 terrorists who were members of the Islamic terrorist organization named al-Qaeda, hijacked four commercial airplanes and committed suicide attacks against the United States. Two of the planes were ran into the towers of the World Trade Center (Twin Towers) in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside of Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The attacks resulted in mass death and destruction, triggering the United States initiatives to fight terrorism and defend our country. Over 3,000 people were killed during the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., among these people were more than 400 police officers and 300 firefighters, these heros lost their lives

The United States is ranked number thirty-five on the Global Terror Index. The United States has a 4.23 out of ten terror rate. This number is pretty high acknowledging the fact that the United States is one of the most developed countries in the world. Studies show that there have been approximately 80 terrorist attacks in the United States in the past five years in which more than 150 innocent people were killed and more than 350 experienced severe injuries. September 11 attack was the most impacting terrorist attacks that the united States has ever experienced. 2,996 people dead in this tragic event, 19 of which were the terrorist. Over 6000 people suffered severe injuries. And the whole nation was left traumatized. The attack was led by

Studying counter-terrorism as a form of social control and, more specifically, a component of criminal justice, criminological research can bring out the security dimensions of social control that are not of a military or political character. Much of the contemporary public discourse on terrorism, especially in the popular media, typically focuses on counter-terrorism in the world of politics and in relation to war, but criminologists can reveal the manner in which institutions of social control, particularly law enforcement agencies, conceive of and respond to terrorism as a criminal matter. The targets of counter-terrorism are thereby treated as suspects, who are given certain rights of due process on the basis of publicly presented evidence

Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.

No one can deny that the word terrorism is hated to be heard. Terrorism is commonly known as any action referring to violence against innocent citizens or causing damages to a public or private property for political purposes. According to Maria Keet, (Senior Lecturer with the Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Town) Terrorism is resulted due to plenty of causes that made such a phenomenon be a public concern. Separatism is probably the main reason of arising of terrorism. The conflict between people is due to nationalism and racism issues. This conflict arises with the existence of inequality, racism and political opportunities. Other reason of arising of terrorism is poverty and social inequality. Some statistics proved that 15% of the population consumes 85% of the resources all over the world which made the other 85% of population fight for these resources by any means. Last but not the least; Religion is one of the causes of terrorism especially in Egypt. Terrorism became widely spread in the Egyptian streets after the 30th June revolution in 2013. After the sacking of the former president, who belonged to a religious organization, his supporters decided to spread terrorism all-over the country until the former president gets back to his position as a president of Arab Republic of Egypt. Since then, this terroristic organization performs a terroristic operation which had many impacts on Egypt and Egyptians. Since June 2013,