Friday, August 03, 2007

Control Orders

A worrying judgment by the High Court was delivered today regarding control orders for individuals who've been cleared of all terrorist-related charges, but who still pose a threat to society. The case concerned Jack Thomas, more widely known as 'Jihad Jack' (great alliteration, i must add). Briefly...

The decision means that conditions affecting Thomas including a curfew, reporting to police and prohibitions on meeting certain people will stand, despite the fact that his retrial has not yet gone ahead.

Thomas had argued unsuccessfully that control order legislation was constitutionally invalid. The judges ruled 5-2 that the section of the anti-terror laws relating to control orders was supported at least by the defence power in the constitution.

The court held the defence power was not limited to external threats or to war between nations but extended to protecting the public from terrorist acts.


I guess it defeats the whole purpose of innocent until proven guilty if the courts are allowed to control your whereabouts, especially according to such strict measures. It would make more sense if it applied to individuals charged of a crime, not to "potential" criminals. Everyone has the potential to be a threat to national security, methinks.

2 comments:

Joey said...

Yay you posted! And I thought this blog was a goner for sure!

And yes, I hate the anti-terror legislation with a passion. It's a nice little something the terrorists can list as an achievement, innit?

Then again, I can hear the argument that you can never be too careful when thousands of lives are at stake.

In short, I've got nothin'.

Alev said...

Ah, but that last comment is the argument politicians use to justify their bad policies. Anyway, i like this quote:

"Bad laws go heavily armed, with masks of gold"
~ Bruce Dawe (Ozzie poet)