Racial profiling in free speech heading our way! (Next week) The new offence of advocating terrorism, will criminalise only Muslims for debating opinions about a specific conflict, e.g. who is in the right, who is not etc.. Non-Muslims will be given the cover of free speech and true debate that occurs within a democratic and free society, because they would not be viewed as a person in a position of influence and authority that can have an impact of directly encouraging others. This offence does not require a direct link between statements and the doing of an actual act. So a person may have made a statement however never truly intended it to be a call to undertake a terrorist act, however it can be deemed that it may influence someone. The AFPs reasoning for such a law is quite revealing, particularly the complaint that the current laws actually require them to prove that the person intended to urge violence or a crime and intended the crime or violence to be committed. Injustice in motion! The AFP requested inclusion of the proposed offence on the basis of concern: about the impact those who advocate terrorism have on the foreign fighter problem. Terrorist acts and foreign incursions generally require a person to have three things: the capability to act, the motivation to act, and the imprimatur to act (eg endorsement from a person with authority). The new advocating terrorism offence is directed at those who supply the motivation and imprimatur. This is particularly the case where the person advocating terrorism holds significant influence over other people who sympathise with, and are prepared to fight for, the terrorist cause. Where the AFP has sufficient evidence, the existing offences of incitement (section 11.4 of the Criminal Code) or the urging violence offences (in Division 80 of the Criminal Code) would be pursued. However, these offences require the AFP to prove that the person intended to urge violence or a crime and intended the crime or violence to be committed. In the current threat environment, returning foreign fighters, and the use of social media, is accelerating the speed at which persons can become radicalised and prepare to carry out terrorist acts. In the AFP’s view, it is no longer the case that explicit statements (which would provide evidence to meet the threshold of intention) are required to inspire others to take potentially devastating action in Australia or overseas. The cumulative effect of more generalised statements when made by a person in a position of influence and authority, can still have the impact of directly encouraging others to go overseas and fight or commit terrorist acts domestically. This effect is compounded with the circulation of graphic violent imagery (such as beheading videos) in the same online forums as the statements are being made. The AFP therefore require tools (such as the new advocating terrorism offence) to intervene earlier in the radicalisation process to prevent and disrupt further engagement in in terrorist activity. - aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/Counter-Terrorism_Legislation_Amendment_Foreign_Fighters_Bill_2014/Report1
Posted on: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:08:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015