|
mantra
|
I don't think the average Australian Muslim does reject democracy FD. Really how often do we hear dissenting opinions from them? Occasionally a rebellious Sheikh will say something very annoying and chauvenistic, but overall they go about their business quietly.
The coalition created more disharmony with the amended sedition laws, forcing any dissenting voices underground. Far better to have those who are unhappy have their say publicly without the fear of imprisonment.
Amended sedition laws...
The Howard government’s Anti-Terrorism Bill (2005) proposes that the old offence of “uttering seditious words” be repealed. In its place, though, the bill proposes to add five new offences. It would also double the penalties for sedition, from three years’ imprisonment to seven, and allow convictions on the basis of “recklessness” rather than requiring specific intent.
More importantly, it signifies a bid by the federal government to give itself the legal power to prosecute peaceful dissidents against Australian participation in US-led invasions and occupations of other countries such as Iraq and, possibly in the future, Iran and Syria, that Washington deems are targets of its global “war on terror”.
Thus the bill proposes to amend the sedition laws to make it an offence for “any person” who “urges another person to engage in conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country ... engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force”.
This would give the government the legal power to prosecute any anti-war campaigner who speaks to another person, or hands a leaflet to another person, urging them to participate in a peaceful rally that calls for the withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq — since it could argue that this is providing assistance to patriotic Iraqis seeking to force the withdrawal of these troops from Iraq by engaging in armed hostilities against the ADF.
|
Forum
Pages: 1 
