Lambie: Australian way…or highway
Senator Jacqui Lambie is planning to solve the ISIS-foreign fighter problem. The Independent from Tasmania) proposes to:
1) Reintroduce the death penalty for treason and terrorism;
2) Ignore advice calling for the rehabilitation of returned foreign fighters – charge them all with treason instead;
3) Strip innocent citizens with a suspected formal or informal link to ISIS of the right to vote, stand for parliament, and draw social security benefits until after an official government inquiry clears them (that is, strip first, consequences later); and
4) Change our Australian Citizenship oath to:
“From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights, liberties and opposition to Sharia Law I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.”
Senator Lambie’s letterhead says:
Senator for Tasmania – Putting Tasmania First – Jacqui Lambie
As executions would be a new “industry” for Australia, where no execution has occurred for nearly 50 years, we wonder if Senator Lambie is suggesting executions become a monopoly business for the state of Tasmania.
CLA believes such radical proposals need widespread airing before a nationwide public debate. We do not think Senator Lambie’s personal dictum: “It’s 100% the Australian way or the highway” is sufficient to finalise the issue, as other people may have a different view of what “the Australian way” is.
For instance, CLA is opposed to the Lambie proposal on several grounds:
- we oppose the death penalty, in Australia, in Indonesia, and in Tasmania;
- treason is not a word or a charge to be bandied about lightly: if new laws are needed to deal with the potential behavior of people returning from war zones, the laws should apply specifically to those circumstances and to all people returning from war zones;
- CLA believes proof in a court is needed before citizens can be stripped of their inherent human rights and the civil liberties they enjoy as Australians; and
- changing an oath to specifically exclude one religion is discriminatory: a number of religious laws and practices of other faiths may equally call for attention under the broad parameters of the Senator Lambie approach, which is why CLA believes oaths of allegiance should be secular documents, godless.