Re: [-empyre-] the sedition laws
- To: soft_skinned_space <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [-empyre-] the sedition laws
- From: Deborah Kelly <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:13:41 -0800 (PST)
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jVEWoywRJZqhWdsx9yUqfjtqZjsAzNN69Zor/2ILmdKn8lq3B/rHqQwzFvB4hhEpMo5NJkhrIFg948BJCnfQYDyf6ongHvjSKweY5HNkJJXG5xHt4dmmjmVdhcT/fdsfr9fCRMXY7LgLmEdGLWo+QgUyhCN6Z0nFQmdeH3ujKBE= ;
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: soft_skinned_space <email@example.com>
hallo- and thanks, Nicholas,
may I ask, were you quoting a source?
or did you just do an amazing amount of research in
I also agree that it apears that 'artistic' dissent
and criticism are protected, but I am interested not
just in the cultural arena: I am keen to urge
disaffection with the government politically, and to
join with those likewise inclined, for instance.
We have already seen that the laws will be selectively
applied, otherwise Alan Jones would be in jail,
as it is newly proscribed:
24 (d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility
25 groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good
26 government of the Commonwealth.
Alan Jones is a far right radio announcer with a big
following, and in the lead up to the recent race riots
here in Sydney he rabidly encouraged violence,
including gun violence, by anglo australians against
lebanese australians. ( He is also one of the prime
minister's dearest friends.)
As you say, the laws will be interpreted by
'overzealous bureaucrats'; sadly, that is an apt way
to describe our entire ethnic gang of a government.
--- Nicholas Ruiz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Sedition--from the Latin, seditio--"a going
> Treason--from the Latin--traditio, "a handing
> Thus we have "a going apart" in contrast with "a
> handing over."
> A primary statement: sedition is not treasonous,
> despite the increasing
> intimacy of the terms in our recent governance. To
> "hand over" as in
> treason, implies the disclosure of a secret.
> Governments seem increasingly
> bent upon monitoring and punishing "going apart" and
> "handing over," as if
> they were the same event. Borrowing from McKenzie
> Wark, we might say this
> is how governments are "securing security".
> In spite of all this, the new Anti-terror
> legislation in Australia, and in
> particular, the portion of it focused upon sedition,
> seems to allow for
> artistic dissent and criticism. Section 80.3:
> "Defence for acts done in
> good faith" precludes the application of Section
> 80.1: "Definition of
> Organization", and 80.2: "Sedition" to those that
> 'lawfully' criticize the
> government and its structures, or encourage others
> to seek lawful change.
> However, the following definition, taken from
> Schedule 7;4 of the
> Anti-terrorism legislation seems problematic:
> --seditious intention--means an intention to effect
> any of the
> following purposes:
> 16 (a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or
> 17 (b) to urge disaffection against the following:
> 18 (i) the Constitution;
> 19 (ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;
> 20 (iii) either House of the Parliament;
> 21 (c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise
> than by lawful
> 22 means, to procure a change to any matter
> established by law
> 23 in the Commonwealth;
> 24 (d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility
> between different
> 25 groups so as to threaten the peace, order and
> 26 government of the Commonwealth.
> The vagueness of terms like 'hatred' and 'contempt',
> and 'threaten'
> seemingly conflict with the openness purveyed in
> Section 80.3: "Defence for
> acts done in good faith."
> Ultimately, the interpretation and then the
> application of one or another's
> reading of this legislation will matter most. In
> other words, how will
> these laws be used? If read fairly, they may cause
> little concern, but
> there are terms in Schedule 7;4 that could lead to
> confusion and
> misapplication by overzealous bureaucrats and
> enforcement officials.
> It is interesting to note that the USA Patriot Act,
> and the proposed
> Domestic Enhancement Security Act of 2003 (USA
> Patriot Act II--upon
> auto-searches of their .pdf files-- both do not
> contain a single instance of
> the words 'sedition' nor 'treason'!
> Nicholas Ruiz III
> Interdisciplinary Program in the Humanities
> Florida State University
> Editor, Kritikos
> empyre forum
> empyre forum
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and