Effectiveness Of Australian Law And Terrorism Kyle Luker Essay

The historic and political foundation for lay participation in criminal jury trials is that it offers an important check on judicial and political power exercised exclusively by the government. The jury’s role as a popular body for oversight of government becomes especially important when individual citizens or groups have been accused of committing serious crimes against their own government. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act in the United States and similar anti-terrorism measures imposed in other nations in the world, serious terrorism charges have been brought against their citizens, political dissidents, and civic activists. In Australia, for instance, after the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2002, two separate juries examined charges of terrorism. In Australia’s first-ever terrorism trial in 2005, the all-citizen jury acquitted Zeky Mallah, 21-year-old supermarket worker, of terrorist charges of preparing to storm government offices and shoot officers in a supposed suicide mission . In the second highly controversial trial, in which the government’s only evidence was the defendant’s confession extracted at a Pakistani military prison, the jury found Joseph Thomas guilty of charges for intentionally receiving funds from al-Qaeda. However, soon after the verdict, the appeal’s court reversed all of his convictions because it determined his coerced confession at a foreign prison to be inadmissible .

Countries around the world have developed their own legislations to fight terrorists. Fighting terrorists depends on two things, the laws amended in the country. Australia has always been a main factor in fighting terrorism internationally, after witnessing a number of modern terrorism act (Healey, 2011). Australia has also put some laws to prevent terrorists from terrorizing Australia (Healey, 2011). Although Australia have put laws to fight terrorism but it depends on the severity of the response to the assaults. Australia follows the UK’s system of respondents against terrorists, which includes five levels: low, moderate, substantial, severe and critical (Bergin, 2014).

Anti-terrorism policy has become a more important legislative issue since the September 11th incident in 2001. Prior to this event, North American countries felt the need to implement new policy that would protect their citizens from criminal activity associated with acts of terror. In Canada, anti-terrorism policy consists of three main components identified in the literature: 1) The criminal code and relevant violations; 2) Anti-Terror Legislation; and 3) policy in practice. In this briefing note, all three will be analyzed based on whether or not the current policy is sufficiently protecting Canadians while ensuring that civil liberties are not being violated.

The Human Rights Act and anti-terrorism in the UK: one great leap forward by Parliament, but are the courts able to slow the steady retreat that has followed?

Today we have released Australia’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The strategy sets out the counter-terrorism arrangements in place across Australia. It provides information to the community on the terrorist threat and what we are doing

Both Reagan and Bush administrations touted their strategy that would maintain social control of immigrants (Evans,2005:216). This ‘unequal justice’, which is justified through ius in bello, allows the political reality to serve as a ‘revenge’ against mafia-gangs that nurses the “vicious cycles of war” (Morgan and Dagistanli,2010:586) in social reality. The injustice of political agenda is mirrored in Australian police response. Therefore, the ‘emergency situation’ caused by ius in bello can be understood as: “Acts of terrorism [that] has been reflected in legislation that allows intervention and prevention in the early stages of terrorism related behavior consequently appropriate response to the level of thereat or risk created by terrorism” (McCulloch and Pickering,2009:632). Thus, the ‘political injustice’ can be understood as Schmitt (1985:10) posits: “Public order and security depend on militaristic bureaucracy, self-governing body controlled by the spirit of commercialism or radical organization decides when there is order and security or threat and disturbance”. In other words, ius in bello creates misbalanced public policies between political and social realities that lead to injustice between these two

“Australia’s response to terrorism is the sheer volume of lawmaking. In the years since September 11, Australia’s Federal Parliament, thus excluding the laws of the States and Territories, has enacted 61 anti-terrorism laws” (Williams 132). This shows how countries believe that creating laws will slow down terrorists from attacking their countries. The United Kingdom or Great Britain also believes in making countless laws to protect its citizens from terrorist acts. The vast number of anti-terrorist laws enacted by Australia and the United Kingdom is the main reason I chose to pick these two countries to compare. These laws have created conflict with citizens because it interferes with their basic freedoms. Most laws have indirectly taken freedoms

Terrorism has disreputably arisen as a 21st century problem, wreaking havoc anywhere at any given time with no easy solution to combat it. The term ‘terrorism’ is notoriously controversial as various factors can encompass such an act. Hence it has never been successfully defined by the international community. Despite this, the threat of terrorism is imminent and many nations recognise the need to prevent acts of terrorism. Australia in particular has enacted laws to combat this threat, often in great haste and number. However due to the severity of these laws, human rights have been infringed, in particular the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom from arbitrary detention and arrest and the right to privacy. Hence the question arises

“Our focus is on the human rights of Australians who are threatened by home-grown terrorism… We have to do all we can to prevent young Australians from taking up arms to fight with these terrorist organisations.”- Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. The Australian government is constantly making changes to keep up with new demand for protection. New laws are constantly being introduced to keep Australians safe and stamp out home grown terrorism. Over the last few years preventative detention orders and control orders have been introduced in an attempt to reduce the risk of attacks on Australian soil. Stricter anti-terrorism laws have made the wider community feel safer, however, is it possible that these laws have compromised human rights of certain individual?

The true danger of the Anti-Terrorism Act is not that it fails to stop the terrorists, but that it potentially casts innocents as terrorists. Captured within the broad definition are participants in anti-government protests, wildcat strikes, and certain religious and charitable groups. While these activities may be violent and illegal, it is a dangerous exaggeration to call it ‘terrorism’. Lawyers could also be seen as providing help to accused terrorists through their expertise (CBA, 2005, p. 11). As well, the definition of terrorism has a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and political dissent (ICLMG, 2004, p.28). The political environment is increasing hostile to public expressions of political dissatisfaction. The right to political dissent is particularly essential in a democratic state because public approval is what establishes the power of the government, and dissent reflects dissatisfaction to the actions of the elected government. The role and power of the citizen in a democracy has been reduced in the fear of terrorism when political dissent is restricted.

In this essay I will highlight how Global Terrorist Organisations (GTOs) challenge the traditional concept of security by first introducing the following definitions; of “Traditional Security” within the International Relations discipline; the officially accepted and recognised Commonwealth of Australia’s definition of what are and what are not considered acts of Terrorism and how terrorist organisation are defined by the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code). This will in turn help to understand the background of how GTOs operate; their motives and the counter terrorist activities that are adopted to halt and reduce the dangerous impact these acts of terrorism can occur.

Terrorism, the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, mainly in the pursuit of political or religious claims. Terrorism has become a word that has now been plastered around every media outlet, appearing almost every day in some shape or form. The terrorist attacks occurring on an international level and the attempts in Australia, are leaving bystanders susceptible to the fear of being attacked. Hence as with most fears, people tend to avoid it. With terrorism, most of the population tend to place their fear on certain religions and ethnicities. The main religion that the population usually associate terrorism with is Islam, which leads to the fearing of people of Middle-Eastern backgrounds. This interconnection between Islam and terrorism can be explained by a variety of factors. These factors include, the terrorist attacks happening on an international level that are being claimed by radical terrorist organisation such as ISIS, the response to these attacks by biased media outlets and people of power. This is shown with a survey that was conducted that revealed that almost fifty percent of people believe there should be Trump-like ban on Muslims entering Australia.

The cultural phenomenon of Terrorism in contemporary society has taken over the lives of individuals and/or groups all around the world. Particularly in the early twenty first century, there has been a strong link between what is known as new terrorism to countries and people associated with the Middle East and Islamic religion. Significant events such as the bombings in New York City in September 2001 have led to racist and islamophobic ideas, attitudes and thought processes with the turn of the twenty first century that still linger in modern day. A main contributor as to why terrorism is seemly so prevalent in contemporary society is the media as an institution across multiple platforms and its heavy influence over the lives over individuals particularly in Western cultures. Hence including the stereotyping of Middle Eastern individuals and/or individuals associated with being a Muslim. Furthermore particular political parties and politicians have enforced their xenophobic opinions of terrorism in the Australian Parliament which demonstrate a presence of intolerance of Islamic religion within Australia. Multiple platforms within the media have led to the notion of associating terrorism with the Middle East and creating an unsafe social environment for any individual and/or group associated with it. This paper will be exploring how all these ideas have gradually directed onto the Western world, thus Australia, to have a fear of Middle Eastern countries, associates,

To counteract terrorism post 9/11, the UK government enacted new anti-terrorism laws. Although these measures were necessary to combat terrorism and preserve national security, arguably they have introduced new challenges to the rule of law (“ROL”) by failing to apply the full normative value of substantive and procedural rights. Yet, Parpworth considers that the judiciary has been willing to uphold the ROL in order to preserve the normative value of individual rights. This essay will evaluate this conception by assessing whether the judiciary has been willing to scrutinise government action. Case law reveals that the clash between executive discretion and the judiciary’s willingness to uphold the ROL has resulted in a “fault line” which runs between the judgments leading to a mixture of approach. While some judgments grant the executive a wide discretion on matters relating to national security, others reflect judicial willingness to interfere with the exercise of executive discretion, illustrating considerable resistance to the executive.

Only when the judges become aware of the jurisprudence of another country will questions be asked of the profession that will send them searching for relevant analogies and precedents. Subscriptions to legal periodicals are expensive. Complete collections are extremely costly. Yet a few well planted contemporary copies of the general Australian legal review, surveying the scene (as the Australian Law Journal does) could bear fruit. It might produce reciprocation. Both India and Australia still look to England for legal material. Yet, in all truth, the constitutional arrangements of Australia are much closer to those of India than are those of England.