Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Lawyers say terror laws could increase risk

By Kerces 31 January 2006 10

In its submission to the legislative committee examining the ACT’s proposed anti-terror laws, the Australian Lawyers Alliance said the laws could increase the chance of a terror attack.

The ABC reports ALA spokesman Mark Bloomer said the legislation “is likely to further marginalise cultural minority groups and potentially increase the chance of terrorism and anti-social behaviour”.

He also said the laws were “retrograde” because they could allow police to detain and question not just terror suspects but also their friends, family and associates.

However the ACT’s Human Rights Commissioner, Helen Watchers, said the ACT laws contain more safeguards than the federal legislation and that the government had tried hard to ensure human rights were safe.

UPDATE Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty has also told the committee that the ACT’s version of the legislation will make us more likely to be a terror target. He mentioned in particular that under the proposed ACT laws it would be much harder to put someone in preventative detention if they are suspected of planning a terror act than under the legislation the rest of the country will pass.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
10 Responses to
Lawyers say terror laws could increase risk
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Slinky the Shocker 4:17 pm 01 Feb 06

If it’s a pig, it might not be muslim terrorists… It took us about 15 minutes to convince our boss that the list wasn’t a joke.
I’ll send a scan to Johnboy, but I let him decide whether posting it violates copyright of “Emergency Evac Procedures Pty Ltd”.

Thumper 3:46 pm 01 Feb 06

Animals noises in the background…


Cows with guns?

Chickens in choppers?

Slinky the Shocker 3:08 pm 01 Feb 06

Slightly off topic, but in my workplace (Uni of Canberra), we just had a visit from “Emergency Evac Procedures Pty Ltd”, who told us to place a Bomb threat check list under our phone.
On the check list, there’s questions to ask the caller, like “What kind of Bomb[sic] is it” and “What is your name and address”. It also asks whether the caller used foul language. &*%@$ and whether there were animal noises in the background.
In terms of the original thread, I’ll agree 100% with Maelinar. Growing up in Europe during the cold war, 10 km away from a Pershing II missile silo (1st strike target), I feel hell of a lot safer these day.After all the threat today comes from a bunch of criminals in splinter groups instead of an empire (or two).

Maelinar 2:31 pm 01 Feb 06

Personally, I fail to see how a law could increase the chance of a terror attack, unless it was the kind of law that went along the lines of ‘it is legal to kill Muslims, as long as you have the appropriate license’.

If you want to talk about fighting an invisible enemy, it’s interesting to compare the military action at Te Whiti, or Parehaka. In short, the british soldiers showed up, but the enemy (maori) ignored them and continued as normal.

The Constabulary arrested the chief and the warriors, but were then so embarrassed by public opinion, that they realised the error in their ways.

In the same vein, would a terrorist organisation still feel good about themselves if they ran into a shelter to blow it up, to find that it was a handicapped childcare centre ?

It is our own media they are responding to, and the quicker the propoganda ends, the quicker terrorism as we know it will as well.

Unbeliever 11:32 am 01 Feb 06

I’d interpreted the gist of your argument as being that giving up civil liberties is reasonable in the context of fighting an invisible enemy. I’d readily admit being wrong if that wasn’t your argument at all.

My point is that the definitions of terrorists and murderers etc. differs according to who is pushing the argument. That the very same lines we use to condemn acts of terror could so easily apply to the US/Oz/UK actions in Iraq. (and indeed to the many foreign policies of these countries worldwide in the name of their own ‘national’ interests)

My opinions of the self-serving acts and rhetoric of the Bush, Howard and Blair morons have nothing to do with your own views Thumper.

Thumper 9:28 am 01 Feb 06


If you are going to quote me, then at least put in the full quote, ergo,

“One can go to war and fight against an enemy who will, and can, fight back”

And I’m totally against the war in Iraq. Kind of stuffs up your anti American/ Howard. Bush stance doesn’t it.

ssanta 9:24 am 01 Feb 06

Hide under a rock! More scaremongering to confuse the weak, stupid and uncreative.

Unbeliever 9:21 am 01 Feb 06

‘There appears to be a section of the community and the media that is quite comfortable with people blowing up innocent civilians and by standers.’ ??? – There’s nothing like a bit of hyperbole and broad generalisations to kick of a Wednesday morning.

Thumper has a good point though :’Murderers are murderers and lets never forget that people.’ Bush’s, Howard’s and Blair’s illegal war in Iraq (invasion, as opposed to defensive action) that’s murdering countless civilians should never be forgotten.

Let’s hope one day that voters will recognise the rogue elements in our own govt. and decide that nonetheless we don’t want to be a rogue nation.

Thumper 8:36 am 01 Feb 06

“is likely to further marginalise cultural minority groups”


This is the thought that scares me. If they are to be marginalised then there is probably a bloody good reason for it.

Frankly, I don’t see Sri Lankans, Indians, Pakistanis, West Indians, Kenyans, etc etc being marginalised. Maybe because they are no threat, and do not pose any real threat.

There appears to be a section of the community and the media that is quite comfortable with people blowing up innocent civilians and by standers.

I’m not. Murderers are murderers and lets never forget that people. One can go to war and fight against an enemy who will, and can, fight back.

One cannot fight back against terrorism because there is nothing to fight against.

The sooner the severe left leaning human rights civil liberties mob realises this the better.

And as a disclaimer, I don’t agree with Howard’s new laws, but on the other hand….

*sigh* End of small rant….

Indi 7:27 pm 31 Jan 06

this thread appears to promote sucking in those who oppose any forms of anti-terror laws, federal or state/territory, what a set-up…I wasn’t aware there were cultural minority groups in the ACT.

Then again the Chief Minister would prefer to have that sort of scenario, divide groups and appease with constant funding allotments via trumpted-up community grants…

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site