The And Political Foundation For Lay Participation

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

Since the conflict model asserts that the criminal justice system’s purpose is to maintain economic and political control by the dominant class, it must be true that the dominant class has access to the system and even the laws that are applied to defendants by judges and by the process of civil procedure. The model informs us, that every decisive aspect of the criminal justice could potentially be controlled by a powerful person or entity. Even the jury selection process is informed by conflict model. In jury selection, the party with the most educated, savvy, and well-connected attorney – usually the costliest – can often control the composition of a jury according to race, gender, and political sway. The conflict model represents the system

Since the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil at the outset of the twenty-first century, western states have enacted vast changes in the way that they deal with terrorist groups and terrorists. Due to the fact that civilian casualties have escalated as a result of terrorist acts, western polities have steered away from a punitive paradigm that criminalizes terrorist acts and aims at penalizing individuals who perpetrate such acts. Instead, there has been a dramatic shift towards a preventative approach in which terrorist acts are prevented prior towards any manifesting and inflicting harm on innocent victims. In Jonathan Shapiro’s “An Ounce of Cure for a Pound of Preventive Detention: Security Certificates,” published in Queen’s Law Journal in 2008, discusses the paradigm shift in Canadian foreign policy as it pertains to terrorism through a cogent discussion of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The IRPA authorizes the government to detained suspected terrorists amidst deportation proceedings. However, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision that the Charter was provisionally violated by certain provisions of the Act, which is the central point of contention Shapiro has in this article. Indeed, he critiques the approach of the Supreme Court in the Charkaoi v. Canada decision, positing that the security certificate process violates several of the liberty and equality

Is there anything that Canadian government would like to hide from the public? Under which authority the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service did act? The Maher Arar case is an example of many other cases that has been violated the Charter by Canadian government. This essay will briefly going through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and point out which section in the Charter has been violated. Then it will discuss the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which rushed through Parliament in the midst of panic and it was ratified by the federal government so fast? Afterward, the essay continues with main focus on the Maher Arar case and events, from capturing him in New York to his release and coming back to Canada. Then the essay analyses the case by making connections between the Anti-terrorism Act and the Canadian Constitution and the authority’s violation to the Constitution and Canadian Charter of Rights and

In the opinion piece, A sorry state? Written on 2nd of august 2007, Professor Janice Stevens opposes in an alarmed and critical tone that the treatment of David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay is a violation of human rights and that Australia’s response only shows that other citizens should be scared of themselves being held in such a state. In a sophisticated style the article addresses at an educated adult audience, or to those who are concerned about the treatment of their fellow citizens.

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.

It was seen excitingly by the common people as justice. However, the energy of these events has changed over time too. Today, it is the belief that you’re innocent until proven guilty and the appeal process that is in place to prevent wrongful executions. Although, the appeal process is a seven step process and can take a lot of time to complete, see Appendix-Image 2 for steps (Hoskins,2011). However, not everyone agrees this formal method is working. This shift of views on constitutionality can be credited to four socialization aspects of a person and change over time with the evolving factors on a person’s beliefs and values. Ultimately, socializers are very situational and change over time, as well as, major factors like regional, economical, and family relations can also affect a person’s

This article examines the prosecutions of ‘whistleblowers’ Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, and applies their cases to the Australian legal system. The authors detail the punishments and protections provided by Australian law, and reveal several flaws including no specific protections for political communication for government employees (section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914) and protections afforded to security organisations. Although much of this article isn’t specific to my research, the information on the Public Disclosure Act 2013 and section 70 and 79 of the Crimes Act 1914 are of relevance, as they pertain to Commonwealth employees and Commonwealth contractors working in detention centres. In conclusion, the authors advise

Jury nullification should continue to be recognized as a part of the Canadian justice system. The power of the juries should stay the same crucially because in some cases the defendant may actually have a reason to not be guilty even though they may be guilty for the crime that they have committed. Authors, Neil Brooks and Anthony Doob discuss about juries and the strengths and weaknesses about them and jury nullification. Chief Justice Fraser of the Alberta Court of Appeal discusses about Krieger 's Appeal and the strengths of jury nullification and how the jury following their conscience is sometimes better than following the “rule of law”. Paul Butler suggests that the law should expand jury nullification by allowing jurors who are the same race as the defendant who is guilty be free which I believe should not be added in the criminal justice system because of the many negative outcomes it may cause in society. Jury nullification is when a jury that takes part in a case believes that the defendant is not guilty even though he/she is guilty for the crime that they have caused by using their conscience instead of considering the facts that they have been presented by the law and that follow the rule of law. Jury nullification should continued to be recognized and the power of juries should be limited because of many reasons. Although jury nullification may be a positive factor to a defendant and to society as well, sometimes it won 't be if the power of juries stays the

In the United States, the Americans considered the jury as a political institution, in which the system brought the citizens to become conscious about the community. Due to individualism spread among the Americans, the citizens were becoming aware of their own interests instead of the interests of the whole community. Somehow, the jury has

Every person has the right to undergo a judicial hearing to avoid illegal detention. However, if that person poses threat to the society and the state, there are instances that the said right is overseen where these types of people are quickly detained after capturing. The writ of Habeas Corpus gives the rights to the captured people to undergo judicial trial. But there is also an article in the U.S. Constitution that states that the writ of Habeas Corpus can only be lifted if the people being questioned in involved in a rebellion or pose a threat to the safety of the public. That is why the administration of the previous U.S. President Bush detained all of the people whom they tagged as terrorist and were captured in the war on Afghanistan in 2001. The question now is to what extend must be the actions of an individual in order to undergo proper trial hearing or to just be put in imprisonment without any hearings or trials done? The purpose of this paper is to review issues within Habeas Corpus and GITMO, discuss how policies changing over time affect the dynamic state of United States, and how these changes can make a big impact to the future law making and practice of the country that is why this issue must be evaluated and examined.

The ability of all citizens to participate in politics is a fundamental right established by international law and implemented within Australia (Reconciliation Australia, 2001). This ensures effective and active civic participation within the nation, which Australia, as a democratic country, needs. Analysis of Ian Macfarlane’s speech “I’ve changed my mind, we picked the wrong date” reveals much about the accessibility and effectiveness of civic participation for different groups within Australian society. It demonstrates that marginalised groups within Australia, specifically the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, face many barriers to the accessibility and effectiveness of their civic participation, attributable to a number of

Today, in the United States, most citizens are able to appreciate the fair, balanced legal system that is in place. The country suffered many failures before establishing the United States Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, which became the foundation of the country’s legal system and protection of the citizens’ rights (American Sentinel University). Citizens may take their right to trial or their right to due process for granted, without realizing how life was before these rights were recognized and established. Until the Constitution in 1787, the justice system was not permanent and not quite clear, causing unfair and unjust treatment. Of course, no system can be perfect, but it is possible to discover options that suit the wants

Civic engagement refers to the ways in which citizens participate in the life of a community in order to improve conditions for others or to help shape the community’s future. It means promoting the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes.

American civic participation has changed in the 20th century. The first way civic participation has changed is social liberation. Since the 1960s or so, exclusions on the basis of race and gender have been breached. In the past, women and ethnic minorities were not allowed to join organizations as members, so they joined partner organizations. However, some organizations were unable to cope with change after the Civil Rights Movement happened and ideals changed and lost membership. Another change is the decline in American patriotism. Skocpol writes, “Patriotism, brotherhood, and sacrifice were values celebrated by all fraternal groups, and military service was touted as the surest