Terrorism Legislation and "primitive" punishments
So it's a brand new day and it is sunny cloudy skies here Down Under. As per usual.
I think I've figured out how to write out one of the two concepts I was talking about yesterday (well, today v.v.v.early in the morning I guess). If you get bored easily, I would advise that you read the next para (= para 3 of this blog) and then go straight down to (let me go count now)..para 8.
There's all this terrorism legislation that's being enacted in some of the Western world. Some of the terms of the legislation is shocking from a basic-human-rights perspective, but quite easy to understand from a security, I'm-so-scared-I'm-wetting-my-pants perspective.
Let me first give you an idea of how dangerous some of these anti-terrorism laws are by some excerpts from the changes made to the Australian Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) in relation to terrorism offences.
S. 101.4 says someone who possesses a "thing" which is "connected with preparation for the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act” is committing an offence. Definition of "a thing"?? Not defined. Further, the defendant bears the onus of proof to show lack of intention if such a "thing" is held to intend "to facilitate preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act" (S. 101.4(5)). What this means to me is, if a security official decides that I intend to assist a terrorist act by using the "thing" (which could be anything) I possess, I will be arrested.
Then S. 101.5 says that it is an offence to collect or make a document with which you "intend to facilitate preparation for, theengagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act." Problem here, like with the above section, is that there's no definition of "collecting" or "making". The only thing that'll save me is if I can show that the collection/ making of the document/s was not "intended" for terrorist acts. Let's put this into a practical everyday situation. The LTTE has claimed that they are ready to attack the Sri Lankan forces with toxic weapons (see this article). I'm such a good researcher (not) that I manage to find info on these weapons and am filing these away in a bright purple file (what?? I can choose the colour I want!!) called "ingredients used for toxic weapons". A friend who knows this tips off the police. I am arrested. Now I must prove that I intended to use this info for an expose, for a newspaper article, to give in for a uni essay, etc. and not to make my own toxic bomb for a terrorist act. How??
Of course, I could have misunderstood the entire section and may have just gone off on a tangent boring you to death. ;o) If so, I apologize.
Eitherways (is it right to start a sentence/ new para with "eitherways"??), this is my point with this concept. Some measures need to be put in place to curb terrorism. Yes, agreed. And therefore, some of my fundamental freedoms (such as the freedom of movement), as I know them now, could be limited. However, this limitation brings with it the bonus of knowing that all those terrorists and possible terrorists, intending to indulge in terrorist acts, are being caught and dealt with, and hence I can go about my day without worrying about being incinerated or de-limbed by some random bomb.
What if, however, these security measures go so far as to severly undermine basic human rights (as the Western world sees it) by say, imposing punitive measures, such as, let's say for the sake of this argument, that if I'm found "intending" to use a "thing" for a terrorist act, my right hand will be chopped off. This is obviously sometime in the future (hopefully, I would have achieved Nirvana by then and will not be re-born in this mixed-up cruel world where people like me tend to randomly come up with concepts that make no sense anyone least of all me). Then at this point in time, would such punishments be accepted by people in the name of security? In the name of peace of mind?
So then, does this mean that the present States that impose such punishments for other offences such a murder and theft, right now, have them because they've already learnt from the past? And hence, does this make the "soft" punitive action (such as mere life sentences for murder or a few year in prison for theft) that other States impose "primitive" and "outdated"?
I think I've figured out how to write out one of the two concepts I was talking about yesterday (well, today v.v.v.early in the morning I guess). If you get bored easily, I would advise that you read the next para (= para 3 of this blog) and then go straight down to (let me go count now)..para 8.
There's all this terrorism legislation that's being enacted in some of the Western world. Some of the terms of the legislation is shocking from a basic-human-rights perspective, but quite easy to understand from a security, I'm-so-scared-I'm-wetting-my-pants perspective.
Let me first give you an idea of how dangerous some of these anti-terrorism laws are by some excerpts from the changes made to the Australian Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) in relation to terrorism offences.
S. 101.4 says someone who possesses a "thing" which is "connected with preparation for the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act” is committing an offence. Definition of "a thing"?? Not defined. Further, the defendant bears the onus of proof to show lack of intention if such a "thing" is held to intend "to facilitate preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act" (S. 101.4(5)). What this means to me is, if a security official decides that I intend to assist a terrorist act by using the "thing" (which could be anything) I possess, I will be arrested.
Then S. 101.5 says that it is an offence to collect or make a document with which you "intend to facilitate preparation for, theengagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act." Problem here, like with the above section, is that there's no definition of "collecting" or "making". The only thing that'll save me is if I can show that the collection/ making of the document/s was not "intended" for terrorist acts. Let's put this into a practical everyday situation. The LTTE has claimed that they are ready to attack the Sri Lankan forces with toxic weapons (see this article). I'm such a good researcher (not) that I manage to find info on these weapons and am filing these away in a bright purple file (what?? I can choose the colour I want!!) called "ingredients used for toxic weapons". A friend who knows this tips off the police. I am arrested. Now I must prove that I intended to use this info for an expose, for a newspaper article, to give in for a uni essay, etc. and not to make my own toxic bomb for a terrorist act. How??
Of course, I could have misunderstood the entire section and may have just gone off on a tangent boring you to death. ;o) If so, I apologize.
Eitherways (is it right to start a sentence/ new para with "eitherways"??), this is my point with this concept. Some measures need to be put in place to curb terrorism. Yes, agreed. And therefore, some of my fundamental freedoms (such as the freedom of movement), as I know them now, could be limited. However, this limitation brings with it the bonus of knowing that all those terrorists and possible terrorists, intending to indulge in terrorist acts, are being caught and dealt with, and hence I can go about my day without worrying about being incinerated or de-limbed by some random bomb.
What if, however, these security measures go so far as to severly undermine basic human rights (as the Western world sees it) by say, imposing punitive measures, such as, let's say for the sake of this argument, that if I'm found "intending" to use a "thing" for a terrorist act, my right hand will be chopped off. This is obviously sometime in the future (hopefully, I would have achieved Nirvana by then and will not be re-born in this mixed-up cruel world where people like me tend to randomly come up with concepts that make no sense anyone least of all me). Then at this point in time, would such punishments be accepted by people in the name of security? In the name of peace of mind?
So then, does this mean that the present States that impose such punishments for other offences such a murder and theft, right now, have them because they've already learnt from the past? And hence, does this make the "soft" punitive action (such as mere life sentences for murder or a few year in prison for theft) that other States impose "primitive" and "outdated"?
Does any of this make any bloody sense??
If you need to borrow my pen to stab me in the eye, don't feel bad. I completely understand.
2 comments:
is it me or did i miss something ?:-)
bc i really did not get how you went from details about new terror laws' arresting criteria etc. to "primitive" punishments. as far as i can see there is no mention of "primitive" punishments in those laws
It is perhaps I who is missing something (like a few hundred grey cells..although that's a different story altogether)..
What I meant was, the current laws say nothing about primitive punishments, but what if sometime in the very distant future there was? And if there was, would people still be willing to accept them?
The assumption I'm making here (in the conclusion) is that people will accept such action in the name of a safer world.
Therefore, does this mean that perhaps the countries that impose harsh penalties now (for other offences) have already evolved past this point already??
Also see my blog today (15 July) for a much saner explanations of where I was going with this whole mad blog ;o)
Post a Comment