(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is a 12 April 2006 ARTICLE 19 press release: ARTICLE 19 calls on the Australian government to review its sedition laws ARTICLE 19 has lodged a submission in response to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of the sedition laws enacted in November 2005. ARTICLE 19’s submission outlines the applicable […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is a 12 April 2006 ARTICLE 19 press release:
ARTICLE 19 calls on the Australian government to review its sedition laws
ARTICLE 19 has lodged a submission in response to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of the sedition laws enacted in November 2005. ARTICLE 19’s submission outlines the applicable international standards governing incitement and restrictions on freedom of expression.
In our submission, ARTICLE 19 calls upon the Australian government to redraft its sedition provisions which represent a serious incursion on free expression. ARTICLE 19 considers the provisions to be neither appropriate nor necessary for the protection of national security. We made the following recommendations:
1. Restrictions on free expression in order to protect national security must meet the following criteria: there must be an intention to directly incite violence, and there must be a direct and imminent connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence.
2. The terms ‘urges’, ‘force’ and ‘assist’ are too broad and vaguely drafted to meet the standard of ‘provided by law’ for restrictions on freedom of expression. These provisions also violate the threshold outlined above at Point 1.
3. ‘Urges’, in particular, should be replaced with the language of incitement, to properly reflect the requirement of an intention to directly incite violence and a further ulterior motive to cause the act. The language of incitement is utilised by the UN Security Council in its Resolutions 1456 and 1624, the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (2005) and human rights courts and tribunals.
4. The ‘good faith’ defence in s 80.3 provides insufficient protection for journalists, media organisations and the protection of freedom of expression in general, and is in urgent need of redrafting.
5. The custodial penalties for a violation of s 80.2 are excessive and exert a serious ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression.
6. The unlawful association provisions based on ‘seditious intention’ are inconsistent with a modern democratic society and superfluous for the protection of national security.
NOTES:
Our full submission is available at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/australia-sedition-review.pdf
The provisions under review by the ALRC are ss 80.2(1) – (8) and s 80.3 of the Criminal Code (Cth):
* Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government;
* Urging interference in Parliamentary elections;
* Urging violence within the community;
* Urging a person to assist the enemy;
* Urging a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities; and
* Section 80.3 provides a limited ‘good faith’ defence to the provisions of s 80.2.
