Re: [-empyre-] Re: sedition and nationalism

[Gianni Wise <gana@iinet.net.au>]

thanks Danny ..
giving the international historical context in any discussion on the  
latest Australian sedition legislation can only be useful.
The US the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798 - dangerous  
aliens. Apparently these laws were similar (but not as stringent) as  
laws passed at a similar time in Britain and Canada (supposedly) in  
response to the threat of subversion by agents of the Revolutionary  
French government - it has been argued they were actually used to  
suppress the Republican Party.  During the Red Scare (US) (1919-20)  
the attorney general a used the Sedition Act and the Espionage Act  
(1917) to launch a campaign against radicals and left-wing  
organizations. Under these two laws 1500 people were arrested for  
disloyalty.
In Britain the common law offence of sedition has a notorious history  
of suppressing political dissent and radical criticisms targeting the  
government.
It could be argued that laws of sedition generally, far from  
preserving the tranquility of the State have the effect of inducing  
discontent and insurrection and to stir up opposition to the  
Government - eg Gandhi under British control

Interestingly, the last trial and acquittal of the common law offence  
of sedition in Britain dated back to 1947. The last prosecution was  
in 1972 but the charge withdrawn. It was seen as obsolescent - and  
would inhibit free discussion of public affairs.
In 1986 sedition laws in Canada were repealed to reflect how out of  
date and politicised they had become.
Not sure what the case was with Australia but it possibly followed  
the UK direction.

and Australia now? is this merely a return to self protectionist  
nationalism that we have seen in the past?


Gianni Wise
http://gianniwise.blogspot.com/

On 12/02/2006, at 10:24 PM, Danny Butt wrote:

> If, as people working in the arts on international mailing lists,  
> we're talking about what it means to make work that might be termed  
> "seditious", then I think we need to be open to learning from all  
> kinds of expertise  outside the particular nation-state that we  
> might be in. The function of sedition laws themselves is to try and  
> maintain a nationalist ideal of the public good that is divorced  
> from e.g. international human rights frameworks. The irony is that  
> the term sedition was not magically invented in Australia (or the  
> United States) but is a cultural export that exists throughout (at  
> least) the British Empire. So in that sense, rather than a "legal  
> definition of sedition in Australian law" being a pre-requisite for  
> the discussion, I think it's a distraction from the deeper  
> questions around our orientation to nationalism and creative  
> practice, and strategies for survival that have a lot of  
> similarities that we can learn from.
>
> --
> http://www.dannybutt.net
>
>
>
> severn@acay.com.au wrote:
>
>
> > I cant see it, sorry?  Neither of the americans have any  
> > background in
> > Australian law and I am completely disinterested in anything they  
> > have to
> > say about american sedition when there is so much to discuss about
> > Australia.
>
> > Not relevent to this discussion. The incompetancies of the  
> > american legal
> > system have no bearing on issues in Australian art practices.
>
> > So we need a legal definition of "sedition" as defined in  
> > Australian law,
> > dont we?
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre