Seditious intent : Launch of film project, 24 May 2006

There were two speeches given at the launch of the Seditious Intent Film Project in Sydney. Immediately below is the speech by Elizabeth Evatt. Further below is the speech by Lee Rhiannon.

Launch Speech by Elizabeth Evatt AO, ICJ Commissioner :

I agreed to be part of this project after reading that the Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, had, on more than one occasion, said that the anti-terrorist laws had a human rights basis. He referred to the protection of life and personal security as part of the justification for the laws, but he omitted any mention of the right to liberty.

This startled me, because the right to liberty always goes together with the right to security of person, in article 3 of the UDHR and article 9 of the ICCPR. They are our protection against arbitrary detention and threats by the State.

It is true that the right to security of person imposes obligations on the State to take reasonable steps to protect individuals against known threats from third parties. Our system of law enforcement is part of the protection of the individual right to security of person.

But the obligation to protect personal security does not override or exclude in any way the State's obligation to protect other rights, including the right to liberty. One right cannot be relied on as a basis for restricting or denying other rights.

The failure to acknowledge this reality has left Australia with the most extreme threats to personal liberty that have ever been known in this country. They are only faintly paralleled by the anti-communist laws of 50 years ago.

A whole new range of offences, defined as terrorist or terrorism linked, have been introduced. Many consider these new offences to be totally unnecessary. There is detention for questioning, preventative detention without charge for up to 14 days, and control orders. Much secrecy is attendant on the enforcement of these laws, and judicial supervision is not available in all these cases.

Such restrictions on liberty cannot be justified on the basis of vague and undefined threats. Under human rights principles, each restriction of rights must be tested to see whether it is a proportionate response to the perceived threat. But if any balancing is done under these laws, it is often done in secret, behind closed doors, without public scrutiny.

In February, the HCHR Louise Arbour spoke of "the critical obligation of governments to provide for the safety and security of all those who fall under their authority." She emphasized, however, that   "in discharging that obligation governments must show a heightened awareness and concern for the fundamental values of the society they are seeking to protect. To undermine that would be to serve, in effect, as the Trojan Horse of the terrorists."

To which I would add that personal security is not advanced, but is diminished by excessive restrictions on personal liberty, freedom of expression, association and assembly. The total security State would not be worth living in. The curtailment of personal liberty could be too high a price to pay for protection against an ill-defined threat which we cannot assess ourselves.

My first point is that the right to personal security does not of itself justify and cannot be relied on to support restrictions on the right to personal liberty or other rights.

protection of rights

This points to another problem, namely that an individual caught up by the anti-terrorist legislation has no way to challenge those laws, for example, on the ground that the deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, unsupported by established risk, or disproportionate to security needs. There is no legal protection of rights in Australia which would support such a challenge, No Bill of Rights, no Charter of Rights. Without such legal protection, there are no checks and balances on the power of the executive to apply these laws.

Legal protection of rights is necessary in order to define what values we want to protect in our society in a positive way, and to indicate what limits we want on the power of authorities to diminish our rights.

A Panel of Eminent Jurists established by the ICJ came to Australia in March as part of a world study of anti-terrorist laws and policies. They acknowledged the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens from terrorist attack.

However, they expressed serious concern with regard to the ASIO powers to detain non-suspects, to limit the right to legal representation and the possible negative impact on confidentiality of communications between lawyer and client.  

The possibility of preventative detention raises serious concern that such detention may be tantamount to derogation from the country's human rights obligations under international law.

Provisions permitting use of control orders are disquieting due to the wide range of conditions that can be imposed on the liberty, movement and communication of a person subjected to the order, without any trial or charge.

They were concerned about many aspects of our anti-terrorist laws. But one of their major concerns was that these laws could not be tested against human rights standards, because of the lack of national legal protection of rights.  

The ACT already has legislation for human rights. Victoria has introduced legislation. And in NSW, the Attorney-General, Bob Debus, only last week recognised that legal protection of rights was a necessary counter measure to draconian anti-terrorist laws.

My second point is that these extreme restrictions on liberty have been introduced not only in haste, with minimal public debate, but also in a legal system without the legal protection of rights which can be found in every other comparable country.

fear and its antidote

It is accepted wisdom among human rights advocates that we need legal protection of rights and that the need is even greater since the introduction of the anti-terrorism laws.  

Which brings me to my third point - a question. Why is it that what is so obvious to me fails to stir the wider community? How come the community has not jumped up to condemn a government which had the temerity to saddle us with laws which so seriously threaten our liberties?  

One answer seems to be that by holding up the spectre of terrorism, and the conjuring up of a so-called "war on terror", with much attendant secrecy, the authorities have contributed to a heightened sense of fear, and dulled responses to the legislation. This war on terror is made the more fearful by depicting the enemy as all around us.

Another answer is that the community has not yet realized how their liberties are threatened. Perhaps they are lulled into thinking it is "others" who are the target, forgetting that once the laws are in place anyone may fall victim to them.

Against that background, one can only welcome warmly the effort by Amanda and Fabio to produce this series of films which seek to bring the issues to a wider audience by using extreme satire and humour. My hope is that this series of short films will help to reduce the level of fear and mistrust in the community, and provoke audiences to find out more about the threat to their freedoms and to take action to protect their rights.  

I have great pleasure in launching this film series.

Introduction by Lee Rhiannon:

Welcome to the Seditious Intent Film Festival. The words say it all - seditious intent. That is how our freedoms can be judged today. Tonight's films will remind us that freedom is the most precious of things. It's easily lost, but much harder to regain. We must remember every freedom that we hold has been prised loose from the grip of governments or rulers over hundreds of years, often at great cost.

Terrorism, almost by definition, is something that attacks freedom. It seeks to cower us into submission, too scared to leave our homes. So what sense does it make to combat terrorism by dismantling the very freedoms that are at stake?

It's a ridiculous idea that you can defend freedom and democracy by dismantling it piece by piece.

But that's exactly what the federal and NSW governments have done with the Anti-Terrorism laws. These laws are a shameful retreat from the ideals that we as a society should be proud to uphold. By changing the very nature of our society, we are sadly giving terrorism a win.

The passing of these anti terror laws remind us why we must keep our upper houses strong.

It is heartening to see events like the Seditious Intent Film Festival. Art has a central and honoured role in dissent. Ideas that sound dry and detached when they come from the mouth of a politician can come to life and be communicated in the most wonderful way.

So congratulations to everyone involved. I'm sure the Festival will be a tremendous success - a success tonight and a success in contributing to the repeal of the anti terror laws.