System failure is no reason for new law

The responses to terrorism continues to tighten the noose on democracy.  At the COAG meeting 170608, in response to the Yacqub Khayre incident, nationalising parole being discussed. Sentiment led by Attorney-General George Brandis is that anyone who has had any association with a terrorist and is convicted of a crime be denied parole. This despite the fact that the Victorian parole board that let Khayre out were not told he was on a terror watch list.
What determines who is on such a list? Who decides what “terrorism” is? The definition is changeable according to the whim of the AG’s office of the incumbent of the day, now or in the future. Where publicly are these questions being asked?
The COAG approach being proposed is a complete judicial bypass. What are the safeguards if, say, someone doesn’t pay their parking tickets, gets some time and before they’re released ASIO says …ah nup, this guy has links to terrorism, while withholding knowledge that he merely knew a guy who kicked the tyre of a government vehicle or perhaps some fabricated or absent nonsense because really, they just don’t like the person’s critical comments in the social media space. Where are the safeguards?
– Troy Lever,  Wollongong NSW
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *