Terrorism Book Controversy Part 3

Transcript 
INTERVIEW, SYDNEY RADIO 2GB 
RAY HADLEY MORNING PROGRAMME 
THURSDAY, 18 MAY 2006 

Subject: 'Books of Hate' 

PRESENTER: Attorney-General, good morning to you.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Morning Ray. 

PRESENTER: I noticed one of your colleagues, in your absence, suggested that maybe what we need to do is change the laws if these pass the test of the current laws. Would you agree with that? 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly. Look, if laws aren't adequate to the task, you look at it again and I've asked for advice on that. But I think it's important to look at these matters in context. When we introduced the sedition laws, you may recall, the debate that occurred and we made it an offence to urge others to overthrow the Government; to interfere with elections; and, more particularly, to urge violence against other groups in the community in a way, which threatened the peace and good order of Australia. As with any criminal thing, you have to prove an intentional act of urging others to engage in that conduct. And what the AFP have done is they've come to a view... even though I might add, we included in the offence an element of recklessness. And recklessness means that you might still have the intention, if you recklessly know that there is a substantial risk that the act will occur as a result of what you are doing. And I've asked for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to look at this matter again. The advice that was given, I understand, was orally. It wasn't a conclusive written advice and I've asked the DPP to now give me that advice because that might point in the direction of potential changes that we should make. But people were very concerned when these laws were introduced that we shouldn't be hindering freedom of speech and argued very cogently that people like yourself, who were reporters, shouldn't be held accountable for reporting what others have said and we included in the law a measure that made it clear that reporting of what others have said would not be an offence. I note the Opposition is out there saying we ought to look at what they did in Victoria with their religious vilification measures...

PRESENTER: Oh no, please. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: ...and were arguing that we should go down that route and we know what's happened in Victoria, where a number of Christian ministers have now been charged with offences because they've offered some critical views of Islam. 

PRESENTER: [They tell me] that in Victoria they're removing bibles from various venues down there including hospitals. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I mean the point I would make is that I think the Opposition taking up the Victorian measure would want to go further than I would think is appropriate. But in the United Kingdom, and I tested this with my officials last night, they introduced - and Malcolm Turnbull raised the issue at the time - whether we should look at glorification of suicide [bombing] in the way in which, in these publications you refer to and whether that would urge other people to act inappropriately. Now glorification or, you know, essentially advancing that this is appropriate behaviour for people to engage in is a step further. We didn't go that far at the time but it may be a matter that we've got to look at further, given that we now know that these publications and what they're saying don't seem to be regarded by the police as constituting an act of urging violence against other groups in our community. 

PRESENTER: But surely Minister, it shouldn't be a long complicated process if the Federal DPP and the AFP say, look, under the current laws we can't remove these books from the shelves, wouldn't it be a simple matter of making the law ... well, say what do we need to do so that you do have the power to remove them from the shelves. Wouldn't that be easy? 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well what we find is you don't know how laws will unfold until you actually have specific examples, which you can look ... 

PRESENTER: So you've got lawyers out there, poring over it trying to find... 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: ...and you know, to think that these things are simple issues, I think, belies the nature of the criminal law system and the way in which those who seek to defend people who engage in behaviour which we believe is repugnant will defend it and what I've got to look at is if we go a step further, will it achieve the purpose and I need to get very comprehensive advice on that and I will. Mark Vaile made it clear. Look, we regard this material that has been published as repugnant. It offends our society because what it's doing is attacking the very values that enable people to enjoy freedom of speech and the way of life that we take as being the most appropriate and best form in which people can live together. 

PRESENTER: Well at least it's raised the debate and now I note that the bookstore proprietors were saying, as recently as yesterday, in your absence, we won't be selling those books anyway. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well I mean I think that they're aware that we're looking at these issues. They'd be conscious of that. But I make the point that we've got to get a balance in relation to these matters. I don't want to be in a situation where we're picking up at a federal level what they've done in Victoria and we end up with these sorts of cases which just, I think, unreasonably restrict people's right to be able to proselytise in relation to their own religious beliefs. 

PRESENTER: I appreciate your time. Thanks Minister. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, talking to us about a rather important issue. 

ENDS

***

Despite failing to get most of the books banned, Ruddock was not going to give up. He put the issue on the table at the July 27th 2006 meeting in Melbourne of the Attorneys-General. As the following articles show, Ruddock claimed a victory, whist the Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hull begged to differ. He described the new censorship proposals as "half-baked".

***

THE nation's attorneys-general will consider banning books that praise terrorism and placing fresh restrictions on reality shows like Big Brother when they meet in Melbourne tomorrow.

Mr Ruddock has told the attorneys the difficulty of banning the books shows that present classification codes and guidelines "may not provide sufficiently clear guidance" at a time when "there has been community outrage at inflammatory and aggressive incitements to violent acts of terrorism contained in some material".

The books — a cause celebre on talkback radio and in the tabloid press — were first cleared by police as neither seditious nor an incitement to violence.

He has written to the attorneys saying that the difficulties he has experienced point to inadequacies in the code and he will be asking the ministers to endorse new rules that would ban any material "counselling, urging, providing instruction or praising" acts of terrorism.

Mr Ruddock's proposal will face opposition from some attorneys tomorrow.

"NSW is not going to support this," said a spokesman for NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus. Margaret Keech, the minister representing Queensland Attorney-General Linda Lavarch at the meeting, said: "Queensland does have some reservations on the hate publications issue."

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls said: "The current classification arrangements already address publications and films that promote acts of terrorism. These arrangements are co-operative and agreed by all jurisdictions."

***

New South Wales Attorney-General Bob Debus says most states will not support the proposal.

He says the current laws are tough enough.

"The governments of Australia have recently introduced extraordinarily tough laws in the system of criminal law affecting terrorism and so it should be," he said.

"The Commonwealth is at the present time suggesting some changes to the censorship laws, the laws that classify publications and at least most of the states don't think that's necessary.

"Our existing classification laws prevent the publication of books which genuinely incite terrorism and that occurred indeed as recently as last week.

"But we do have concerns about a proposal that might see us catching say crime novels or legal textbooks or even as someone has suggested, the Bible."

***

Journalist: Can I just ask you about the concern over the recent books that were allowed into circulation 

Mr Ruddock: I think the Australian public is very concerned about publications that advocate - and I use that word advisedly - advocate the carrying out of terrorist acts. What we have at the moment is some ministers... some classification ministers are more concerned about the impact of programs and computer games may have in inciting people to carry out an illegal act - namely graffiti. However when it comes to the so-called 'books of hate', which may well encourage people to carry out terrorist acts, there is no concern. Among the seven complained of, only two... after a very long and tortuous process... have been refused classification. What I am asking is the ministers to look at, is whether the test which now goes to whether or not the publication incites or promotes terrorist activity as a crime, ought to be changed to a test of advocacy, which wouldn't require us to go into people's minds when they produce their publications, or their film or their video. It would be a simpler test and easier test of dealing with terrorist acts and I'm encouraging the state classification ministers to deal with this issue. And that's what I will be taking to the meeting tomorrow. 

Journalist: inaudible.

Mr Ruddock: I would ask them to look at why on the one hand that if the illegal act is graffiti, that ought to have tougher laws... that's a point argued by some... and yet when it comes to something that goes to people's life and their very safety and security, that people step back and say 'Oh, we wouldn't want to interfere with somebody's freedom of speech.' I mean you have to get the balance right in relation to these matters and none of our freedoms are absolute and people's safety and security is a primary human rights consideration. As I say it's a matter of where the balance should be. At the moment the test is a very difficult one to apply and you've got to try and look at whether people knowingly are inciting terrorist acts when you seek to refuse classification. I think a test of advocacy would be more appropriate.

Journalist: It's been suggested there is potential for some seemingly innocent publications to be caught up in this.

Mr Ruddock: Look I find it very hard for a novel - which is what is being put - to be seen as one that ought to be refused classification, unless it were advocating the commission of a terrorist act. I mean you could write novels that glorify the commission of terrorist acts and advocate about what you might well be concerned, but its down to the same sort of issue. If you have general commentary that is part of a theme you're not seen to be glorifying and advancing - in other words advocating - the carrying out of terrorist acts, you wouldn't be refused classification. That's the proposal I am putting forward.

Journalist: Isn't it a hard line to draw. I mean to work out what is advocating terrorism and what is ironic? 

Mr Ruddock: The point I am making is it wouldn't be an Attorney it wouldn't be a classification minister that would be making these decisions .They would be made by classifying officers and people are able to appeal those decisions to the Classification Review Board which has ordinary members of the public who help make these determinations. But when you have a legal determination that has to be made and it is narrowly cast as it is now, you have to effectively prove an intention to incite or promote terrorist acts. My view is the more appropriate test is advocacy. But it is a test. That is the point I am making. Irony and writing a novel which carries a theme that is not advocating terrorist acts, ought not be caught up in them. Ok? 

ends

***

JOURNALIST: The States have come out and said that they don’t support Philip Ruddock’s proposal tomorrow for the AGs meeting on censorship, that Ruddock wants to tighten it up to crack down on it, basically, so terror books can’t get through. And what Bob Debus is saying today is those laws could actually effect things like the Bible. 

BEAZLEY: Look, I think it’s important that on the terrorism laws that the States and the Commonwealth come to agreements to ensure that those laws are effective as they can be. I hope that their discussions in that way will be fruitful tomorrow. But can I say this: we don’t want endless concentration on laws. What we need now are practical measures. We have identified a series of practical measures in relation to protecting our people on trains and in public transport. The Government promised they’d do things about this 12 months ago and they haven’t delivered. We need them to deliver on that. We’ve got to get a situation on the waterfront where dangerous cargoes are carried exclusively in Australian ships, Australian-manned ships. These are practical measures to defend us. In the end, when we deal with terrorists, we’re dealing essentially with lawless people. Whatever the laws might happen to say, they are quite prepared to break them. So, as well as having decent laws – and I hope that the AGs tomorrow emerge with decent laws, decent additional laws on these matters – but decent laws don’t take the place of practical measures. This Government’s got to be held accountable for the fact that they promised a whole lot of things 12 months ago and they haven’t been delivered. 

***

Nicola Roxon
Shadow Attorney-General
Radio Interview 
Jon Faine 774 Melbourne 
26th July 2006 

FAINE: [inaudible] Ministers for the law who have a busy agenda and added to it just recently, as you may have heard on AM this morning, is the prospect for the Commonwealth Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock to revamp the laws on censorship. He’s not happy with things on television and book sales. He says books on terrorism are being sold and Big Brother needs to get a dose of its own medicine. Nicola Roxon is the Shadow Attorney-General from the Federal Opposition. Nicola Roxon, good morning. 

ROXON: Good morning. How are you?

FAINE: Does the Labor Party think we need new censorship laws?

ROXON: Look I think what this shows is that Mr Ruddock just cannot get his act together when he’s making our laws, I mean if he has a concern about books that are promoting terrorism it just highlights that he didn’t take the time to get those anti- terrorism laws right when we had a debate 18 months ago.

We already know he mucked up the sedition provisions because he pushed for something that was a clumsy tool instead of looking at how you might appropriately catch incitement to violence. And I’ve got to say from the Labor Party’s perspective we draw a very strong line between what is inciting violence and what might be hateful and ugly and things that people don’t want to read but nevertheless we have to argue against those in our public debate in a democracy. They’re not the things that should be unlawful. We believe the ones that should be [unlawful] are those that actually cross the line and encourage and urge violence from others. Using a censorship policy to do that just seems crazy and I think highlights that Mr Ruddock keeps getting it wrong and keeps then wanting to use other silly tools to deliver an outcome which he failed to deliver the first time around.

FAINE: Yes but the question is about whether the community standards are adequately reflected in the rules and regulations.

ROXON: Of course that’s what our classification structure is meant to do.

FAINE: But is it in touch or not?

ROXON: Well I think broadly its right. It’s always appropriate to be able to review it but we do have to understand that the classification scheme is a co-operative one between the states and the Commonwealth and that is a word that Mr Ruddock doesn’t like dealing with. He actually has to be able to work with the states to work out what is going to be in this classification scheme. He can’t do it just by announcing it in the media.

FAINE: Why not?

ROXON: And then saying we should all just do it.

FAINE: He’s in charge isn’t he?

ROXON: He isn’t. The classification structure is a cooperative one that relies on agreement between the States and the Commonwealth. Why doesn’t he go and talk to them if he’s got a problem with this, not just announce it in the media?

FAINE: He’s laying down what he believes are the new limits that he wants to see. To some extent he’s got more say than anybody else doesn’t he?

ROXON: He certainly does and in our federal system its appropriate but you’d be interested to know it wasn’t something that was on the agenda yesterday or the day before for the SCAG meeting and is obviously today on the agenda.

It doesn’t seem to me to be something that he is seriously trying to deal with because it would have been in, you know, the papers, he would have been negotiating with the states, he would have been trying to deal with this in a serious way.

***

NEW SOUTH WALES COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES INC

149 ST JOHNS ROAD GLEBE NSW 2037 AUSTRALIA • PHONE (02) 9660 7582 • FAX (02) 9566 4162

MEDIA RELEASE

nswccl opposes federal government censorship

Wednesday, 26 July 2006 NSWCCL media release: 7/2006

NSW Council for Civil Liberties President, Mr. Cameron Murphy, today cautioned that recent moves by the Attorney-General’s office threaten the independence of the classification process. He also condemned the Attorney-General’s decision to refer overtly political material to the Classification Review Board and statements from the Attorney-Generals office indicating that he intends to raise the level of government censorship.

NSWCCL president, Mr. Cameron Murphy, said: --

“The government has failed to justify its decision to merge the Classification Board into the Attorney-General’s office and explicitly rejected any community consultation on the decision.”

“Government censorship of political material is not only impractical and contrary to Australia’s long history of free speech, but serves to legitimate the material in question.”

“The best way to confront views that may be hostile to Australian society is out in the open where they will most easily and convincingly be challenged.”

“The Australian Federal Police already determined that the material did not promote or incite violence. Simply because a view is unpopular does not mean it should be restricted.”

“Recent moves toward greater censorship of political material target already marginalized communities, stifling free speech and censoring healthy political discussion. Such moves will also be seen as politically motivated and serve to validate the censored material in the eyes of the community.”

“Restricting political expression would also undermine Australia’s international reputation as overtly political material is not censored in other democratic countries.”

“CCL hopes that the Censorship Ministers step up to the Attorney General and defend freedom of expression in Australia.”

For further information contact:

Cameron Murphy – NSWCCL, President on 0411 769 769

CORRESPONDENCE TO: THE SECRETARY PO BOX 201 GLEBE NSW 2037 • DX 1111 SYDNEY

***

NEW SOUTH WALES COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES INC

149 ST JOHNS ROAD GLEBE NSW 2037 AUSTRALIA • PHONE (02) 9660 7582 • FAX (02) 9566 4162

censorship war looms 

by stephen blanks secretary, nswccl 

Recent manoeuvres in censorship laws reveal a government intent on curtailing free speech.

The Federal Attorney-General has written to State and Territory Censorship Ministers ahead of their meeting on 27 July 2006. The Attorney-General has raised the issue of whether Australia’s current censorship laws are adequate. The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties welcomes open discussion on all issues, but the current attitude of the Commonwealth Government on censorship is both alerting and also alarming. There is every reason to believe that the Attorney-General has prejudged the issue and is using it for unnecessary political purposes.

Attorney-General to be Censor 

In February, the Federal Attorney-General announced that the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board would be separated from the Office of Film and Literature Classification(i). In the future, the administrative functions of these boards will be undertaken from within the Attorney-General’s Department. The NSWCCL believes that it is important that the Classification Review Board maintain its independence and not be seen as part of the political process or to be making politically-motivated decisions.

Victory by Silence 

Yet the NSWCCL is not alone in voicing concern. In the past few months a number of Senators have attempted to challenge the proposed changes. The Attorney-General has still been unable or unwilling to justify the change and continues to provide no opportunity for community consultation(ii). By refusing to address the issue, the Attorney-General has effectively sidestepped any scrutiny.

Censorship as a Political Act 

Already, the Attorney-General is using his power under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to intervene in censorship matters. On 5 June 2006, the Attorney-General applied to the Classification Review Board to reconsider eight Islamic texts and one film. The film was a speech by a lecturer at an American University and has since been passed by the Board.

The texts had been reviewed by the Board on several occasions before the Attorney-General's intervention, in addition to prior reviews by the Classification Board, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police. The texts were not considered to be a threat to Australian society or a contravention of the recent sedition legislation by any of these bodies. The AFP determined that the material in question is “descriptive, rather than inciting any type of violence”(iii). Nevertheless, the Attorney-General applied for the review of the eight books.

Freedom of Communication 

The NSWCCL believes that freedom of expression (and freedom of political communication in particular) is fundamental to the functioning of a successful democratic society and an Australian ideal upheld by both tradition and law. A citizenry well-informed by a range of competing ideas and a variety of information will always be better equipped to deal with challenges posed by people who oppose Australia’s liberal democratic tradition.

In the late 1990’s the High Court of Australia found and developed the implied constitutional freedom of political communication(iv). The High Court correctly determined that such a right was essential to representative government and that, while it was not all-encompassing, it protected free and public political discussion.

Moreover, descriptive literature and film, however unpopular politically, should not be examined with more heightened scrutiny than the Board would normally employ. On the contrary, political literature should be entitled to even greater deference. Ultimately, pushing material underground will only prevent open and honest discourse. The NSWCCL believes that the best way to confront politically sensitive material is free and public discussion, not through sensationalised second-hand accounts available through the media or over the internet.

Conclusion 

The Classification Review Board, under Commonwealth government pressure, has banned two of the eight books submitted by the Commonwealth Attorney-General(v). The NSWCCL had a very limited opportunity to make submissions to the Board (see link below). It is the NSWCCL’s view that the banning of these books was unnecessary and counter-productive.

While the material in question may be politically and socially controversial, as it does not present a threat to Australian society, it ultimately serves an educational purpose. The material provides people in Australia with insight into the views that underlie the current political climate and the motivations of those that oppose the liberal western tradition.

You Can Help 

The NSWCCL is currently seeking active volunteers to help in this impending censorship war. Please consider becoming a member of NSWCCL and helping us in fighting this dangerous politicization of censorship.

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Date: 26 July 2006

***

PHILIP RUDDOCK: It certainly seems to me that having submitted I think some seven publications for consideration by the Review Board, and two of them having been refused classification, you have to ask yourself whether the others that were not denied classification might, if the regime operated differently, be refused classification, and that that be appropriate because the material might glorify or promote or incite or instruct people in the way in which serious acts of violence might be undertaken.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: But these books were cleared by police and then the Classification Board, so what in your view is so dangerous about them?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, the point I would make is that there was very considerable anger when it was ascertained that the hurdle that had to be satisfied in order to bring charges in relation to the publication of the particular books described as books of hate, the issue was one in which people said well, look, the laws aren't adequate to the task. And I referred the same publications to the Classification Review Board, who can refuse classification, and in the case of two of them did, in relation to the others. And I think it's fair enough to ask the same question, whether the standard has been set at a too high a level to deal with matters that might well be of real concern to the broader Australian community.

MICHAEL EDWARDS: Robb Hulls from Victoria is already saying that the current classification system works.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Yes, there are some people who, in advance of considering those issues, are prepared to turn their eyes against any form of change. I mean, there are some people who view that publications should be totally unrestricted, and in part that's one of the issues you had to deal with.

My approach in relation to these matters is to try and get a balance, and to get that balance right.

TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Attorney General Philip Ruddock speaking to Michael Edwards.

***

Mr Ruddock says the current censorship laws on books advocating terrorism are flawed but the New South Wales and Victorian attorneys-general have already expressed their reservations about further restrictions.

Mr Ruddock says it is a disappointing attitude.

"There have been some knee-jerk reactions from some quarters that suggest they have a view about tightening classification or censorship as they see it and sometimes without looking at the issue or considering the arguments," Mr Ruddock said.

"They're prepared to reject them before they've started the discussion."

However, Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls says he is yet to be convinced there is a need for more restriction.

"We certainly have very stringent criminal laws, not just classification laws but criminal laws as well, that make it illegal to publish material that would incite criminal offences," he said.

"Philip Ruddock has put this on the agenda and, of course we'll have the discussion, but he hasn't yet made the case out that the law needs changing."

***

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today welcomed the willingness of the States and Territories to re-examine laws relating to the classification of material advocating acts of terrorism, including the so-called books of hate.

"The Classification Scheme is intended to reflect community standards and a significant proportion the community is outraged that this material is available," Mr Ruddock said today at a meeting of Australia's Censorship Ministers in Melbourne. 

Mr Ruddock questioned whether current censorship laws strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the community's right to be protected from material that incites terrorism. 

"Material which urges or advocates terrorist acts should not be available for sale. Our laws should be effective to keep offensive material off the streets, and protect the vulnerable and impressionable in the community," Mr Ruddock said 

"We are not about curtailing freedom of speech. "I believe there is a case for the Classification Board to be given the power to ban material which has been submitted by law enforcement authorities and contains depictions or descriptions that advocate terrorist acts. 

"I am pleased that the states and territories, some of whom had previously expressed concerns about the availability of particular books, are willing to support a fresh look at the Classification Scheme," Mr Ruddock said. 

***

Most state attorneys-general had earlier said they believed censorship laws were tough enough, but Mr Ruddock said there was now a mood for change.

"I am pleased that the states and territories, some of whom had previously expressed concerns about the availability of particular books, are willing to support a fresh look at the Classification Scheme," he said.

"The Classification Scheme is intended to reflect community standards and a significant proportion of the community is outraged that this material is available."

Mr Ruddock questioned whether current laws struck the right balance between freedom of expression and properly protecting the community.

"Material which urges or advocates terrorist acts should not be available for sale. Our laws should be effective to keep offensive material off the streets, and protect the vulnerable and impressionable in the community," Mr Ruddock said.

"We are not about curtailing freedom of speech."

He said he thought there was a case for the Classification Board to be given the power to ban material which contains depictions or descriptions that advocate terrorist acts.

***

States cave in on Ruddock's book curbs. SMH 28.07.06

In the end, however, the states fell into line, although some maintained a veneer of suspicion. Mr Ruddock said he was pleased that previously reluctant states and territories "are willing to support a fresh look".

"Material which urges or advocates terrorist acts should not be available for sale," he said. "We are not about curtailing freedom of speech."

Mr Ruddock asked the states to ban material "counselling, urging, providing instruction or praising" terrorist acts.

***

Ruddock and states at censorship odds. The Age 28.07.06

Mr Ruddock said he had highlighted a gap in the censorship laws - allowing through books "advocating" a terrorist act in general - with a hypothetical scenario.

"I am puzzled if attorneys come to a meeting and don't have the wit to be able to understand what the law means," he said on the second day of the meeting in Melbourne.

"The scenario demonstrates it. It ought not to be beyond the wit of people to understand it."

Although the state attorneys were not persuaded by his example, Mr Ruddock said it had been agreed that government staffers would draft a paper based on his scenarios, "perhaps in one syllable terms".

The submission would be presented to a later attorneys' meeting where Mr Ruddock hoped they would be convinced of the need to strengthen censorship law.

"The Victorian attorney sees human rights as absolutes. You are entitled to impact upon people's freedom of speech if it is going to secure people's lives and personal securities," he said.

Mr Ruddock rejected Mr Hulls suggestion the federal criminal law could be used instead to tackle the problem saying the proposal "flies in the face of what is in fact the most sensible route".

Tougher censorship was more effective than imposing jail terms on people under criminal law, Mr Ruddock said.

"Rob Hulls has a bit of a blind spot in relation to these matters.

"I hope that in the intervening time a sensible premier might realise the implications of dealing with national security issues in a comprehensive and sensible way."

Mr Hulls acknowledged the attorneys had agreed to consider a further submission on the issue even though Mr Ruddock had so far failed to make his case.

"We'll have a look at it but the general view was that the censorship laws are actually appropriate now," he said.

Mr Ruddock's proposal was "half-baked" and had not identified any gaps in the current censorship laws, Mr Hulls said.

"He couldn't tell us what the problem was with the censorship law, in fact (he) cited examples where the censorship legislation is actually working.

"This is a very important forum dealing with matters of national significance.

"He come in and he postures and says there's a big problem with our censorship laws but he can't tell us what the problem is."

***

Law chiefs have their eye on voyeurs. The Age 28.07.06 

On the first day of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting in Melbourne, a bid by federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock to broaden the circumstances in which books may be banned received a mixed reception.

Although Mr Ruddock won agreement for a review of laws relating to books advocating terrorism, Mr Hulls said no final agreement could be reached until the Federal Government made a concrete proposal. "Mr Ruddock was told to go away and work up a more substantial proposal," Mr Hulls said.

Under the existing National Classification Code, books that "promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence" may be banned.

But Mr Ruddock said changes were still needed: "Material which urges or advocates terrorist acts should not be available."

***

Law chiefs stuck on hate books. Herald Sun 28.07.06

The nation's chief law officers yesterday thrashed out plans by federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock for a tougher approach to hate books. After the meeting, in Melbourne yesterday, Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls said Mr Ruddock's idea needed more work.

"Mr Ruddock was told to go away and work up a more substantial proposal because he wasn't able to give a proper indication of what the problem with the current classification system was," Mr Hulls said last night.

"Nor was he able to indicate whether there were any changes in his own criminal law that could better deal with his concerns."

***

The following article gives ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell's opinion on the outcome of the meeting.

Federal, ACT talks on terror law threat. Your Guide Canberra 28.07.06

Mr Corbell said the states and territories remained unconvinced of the need for the tougher laws.

"There was no support to change the laws but we did indicate we would look at any further information the Commonwealth wished to provide," he said.

"In the meeting, Mr Ruddock provided a hypothetical example using a hypothetical book with a hypothetical claim not captured by the current laws.

"We did not feel his argument was compelling."

***

Blast from Ruddock on books. The Australian 29.07.06

He [Attorney-General Philip Ruddock] accused the states of not having "the wit" to understand his proposals, during a break in the meeting of federal, state and territory attorneys-general in Melbourne.

Mr Ruddock, who wants the power to ban books that advocate terrorism, said Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hull had a "blind spot" on the issue, believing human rights should be absolute. But Mr Hulls said Mr Ruddock had arrived at the meeting with a "fictitious" and "half-baked" proposal and needed to refine his stance.

"We have said to Mr Ruddock, 'Go away and do some work.' He came in here with a half-baked proposal and couldn't tell us where the gaps in the law were. So he's decided to do that," he said.

***

JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY: Review of security and counter-terrorism legislation: Discussion

Date: 01 August, 2006 
Committee: JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
Reference: Review of security and counter-terrorism legislation 
Place: Canberra
Questioner: Senator FAULKNER; CHAIR 
Responder: Dr Kadous (Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network)
Page: 50 
Proof Yes
Database: Joint 
Committees Source: Joint

Senator FAULKNER—I suppose the logical follow-through issue for people in parliament and government to consider is how we deal with that perception. Do you change the laws or do you try and deal with some of the other root causes? What is your view on how to deal with it? You have talked about increasing fear, growing alienation and mistrust of authority in the Muslim community. I accept that evidence that you have given. I think all of those things ought to be concerning for members of this committee and members of parliament and senators. I think those are matters of great concern. How would you advise this committee or parliament or government to deal with that growing fear of, mistrust in and alienation of the Muslim community?

Dr Kadous—Let us break it up into legal, political and social. Legally, I think accepting the recommendations of the Sheller report would restore balance regarding some of these issues, particularly proscription—I know that is outside of the scope today. I think implementing the recommendations of the Sheller report would show that the government is open to independent review of these antiterrorism laws. It would communicate to the community that they still have significant rights and that the government is not necessarily going one way on the laws. They are not pressing hard; they are adjusting the laws to ensure that they have a lesser impact on the Muslim community. I also think, strategically, from what we have seen in the last few days, and also with the sedition legislation, that trying to squash particular points of view is counterproductive—whether it be the censorship of books or the introduction of sedition offences, it is likely to backfire for a number of reasons.

We have already observed in the community people telling us that the reason they are introducing these sedition laws is that they cannot combat the arguments logically, so they are resorting to legal protections to entrench the message that they want to put out. Of course, I am not including in that incitement to violence. Incitement to violence should always be met with the full force of the law. I am talking about other things that may be said. I think censorship is counterproductive because all it effectively does is to work as an imprimatur for people who might be susceptible to thinking, ‘This is a book worth reading,’ or ‘This is an idea that’s worthy of further attention.’ Attempts to censor arguments are counterproductive.

On a political level, sometimes politicians forget about the impact of what they say. For example, when a politician says that the freedom to wear hijab is not the kind of freedom we want in Australia, that it is like the freedom that existed in Nazi Germany, that has ramifications on a very real basis for people on the street. After every terrorist attack we see a spike in attacks on women. After comments like that, you talk to your family and friends and they tell you that they have been attacked verbally. Another comment is that people who want to implement sharia law—and I am not trying to single out a particular party or person; I am simply giving examples—should go back home. This is ignorant on two fronts. Firstly, it shows a misunderstanding of what sharia is. Sharia law to Muslims in just how they do things. It covers business transactions, bioethics, inheritance law and family law. It is not just what is depicted in the media. That shows ignorance from that aspect.

It also shows ignorance of the demographics of the Muslim community. In the order of 40 per cent of the Muslim community is born in Australia. If you tell them to go home, they go, ‘Where? Back to Sydney?’ That is the issue. Politically, I think politicians need to be more careful about what they say. Socially, a recommendation that the Sheller report put forward is that there needs to be education of the Muslim community about the laws. We have done as much as we can within our limited resources, but I think it needs to be taken to the next level. Simplifying the laws and reducing their discretionary nature would also help. But those are also some of the recommendations within the Sheller report.

***

The SMH reported that the NSW Council for Civil Liberties intends to challenge the banning of the two books in the Federal Court.

Islamic book ban challenge . SMH 09.08.06

The council's president, Cameron Murphy, said: "We think Australia has a strong and robust democracy, and in a strong and robust democracy there should be a degree of tolerance that can accept material as unpleasant as this.

"The process of banning it is a slippery slope and one we shouldn't be going down."

***

Strike up the ban: Censorship and the war on terror.
Norman Abjorensen 
Australian National University 
Discussion Paper 26/06 (August 2006)

Reflecting on the recent decision to ban two Islamist books, Norm Abjorensen is critical of how censorship has been used in the war on terror to pursue political rather than security goals.

The first Attorney-General in the Howard Government, Daryl Williams, noted with pride in 1997 that ‘Australia is a tolerant society, free from religious and political oppression. 

Fortunately in Australia today we do not have a system of political censorship’. Yet his words less than a decade later take on a certain irony. 

Since the 1970s there have been profound changes in the approach to the classification of films and publications in Australia. In many respects these changes have reflected changes in society generally and the way we view individual rights and freedoms.²⁵

²⁵ Daryl Williams, 1997, ‘From censorship to classification’, address to Murdoch University, Perth, 31 October.

It is difficult to see just what such drastic measures as banning these two books are aimed at achieving, apart from being seen to respond to a populist and intemperate clamour for action out of all proportion to the perceived threat. 

While the Classification Review Board rejected proposals to consign six other publications to the banned list, the whole episode raises pertinent questions about the use of the classification process to achieve what are essentially political outcomes.

***

Terror research under threat from Aust law. ABC Lateline 11.09.06

MARGOT O'NEILL: Why is it that growing numbers of young men and women are willing to kill themselves and slaughter innocent bystanders? It's a vital question for those combating terrorism, which is why the Australian Research Council granted more than $800,000 to one of Australia's most distinguished sociologists, Professor Riaz Hassan, to study suicide terrorism. It's one of the largest research grants ever given for studying terrorism, which the Government has designated a priority for the federally funded research council. But Professor Hassan has confirmed to Lateline that he's abandoned plans to interview those associated with groups like Hezbollah and Hamas because of concerns about Australia's new anti-terror laws. Professor Hassan, who was made a member of the Order of Australia this year, refused a TV interview, but, in a statement to Lateline, said he'd "Had a meeting with [the Attorney-General] Philip Ruddock in Adelaide late last year to try to clarify the situation [...] and his [Mr Ruddock's] response was that I must 'follow the law'. I am continuing with my study and exploring ways to restructure it to achieve the research objectives."

PROFESSOR TESSA MORRIS-SUZUKI: A case like this one is of real concern and, unless some steps can be taken to get clearer guidance from the Government, it's something that's likely to recur in a number of universities and, in the end, it really will discourage researchers from going into this field at all.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Professor Tessa Morris-Suzuki is chair of the ANU's Asia & Pacific Research Committee. She says researchers are postponing or abandoning field projects, because, like Professor Hassan, they fear they could be targeted by Australian intelligence agencies.

PROFESSOR TESSA MORRIS-SUZUKI: In the extreme cases, that people might be picked up for questioning, but also that they might be required to hand over field notes, their recordings of research, and so on.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Last year, Lateline reported on an honours student at Monash University, who was researching suicide terrorism when he was visited by a Federal Policeman.

ABRAHAM RUSHDI, MONASH UNIVERSITY RESEARCH STUDENT (LATELINE, 12 SEPTEMBER, 2005): He wanted to ascertain if I was suspicious in carrying out any terrorism attacks or activities, and just to substantiate why I was borrowing books on terrorism. And, I explained that, at that time, I was doing an honours - oh, the year before, I was doing an honours in Terrorism Studies at Monash Uni and those books were directly related to my studies.

PROFESSOR GEORGE WILLIAMS, UNSW LAW FACULTY: People need to be well aware of just how their research could lead them down a path that they didn't expect, and well aware of the possibilities of being called in for questioning or even the less likely possibility of breaching the criminal law.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Some researchers have been warned by their universities they could be detained and their notes and recordings taken. They've also been told they must alert interview subjects that their anonymity can't be guaranteed, and that all information may end up in the hands of Australian intelligence. It means interviews with radical Islamists are all the more elusive. Dr Greg Fealy is one of the ANU's most experienced and internationally recognised researchers into Islamic fundamentalism in Indonesia. Speaking from Jakarta, he says it's a serious set back for Australia's national security if academic researchers drop field interviews.

DR GREG FEALY: It is absolutely vital for researchers to be able to conduct their research directly with the people who are involved in suicide bombers - whether these are prospective suicide bombers, who are pulled out of operations or not being used, or those people who've been masterminding suicide operations. Sometimes, you get insights from meeting people, from being able to discuss with them, at length, their motivations and their rationale for carrying out suicide terrorism. You can only get that from first-hand access to those people, rather than from reading second-hand accounts.

MARGOT O'NEILL: But to do this researchers need more reassurance from the Government, he says.

DR GREG FEALY: I suspect the Government would be better off if it stipulated that what is of interest to them and their intelligence agencies is information that researchers gather on terrorist operations, as opposed to terrorism ideology or the psychology of terrorists - anything like that. Any information which relates to a possible terrorist attack, could of - should - of course, be handed over to the relevant authorities. But it's all the other kinds of research on terrorism that are possibly...fall within this legislation and its restrictions - that's the kind of research which we badly need to have done and which may not be done as a result of the legislation.

MARGOT O'NEILL: In an interview with Lateline tonight, the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, tried to offer reassurance, saying the new laws did not target research, and that academics could come and see him in person if they had any concerns.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: If somebody had raised these issues with me, I would have been happy to talk to them directly about their projects, what they were doing, what they hope to gain from them, and talk to them about the nature of the circumscribed powers that agencies have to investigate real threats.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Mr Ruddock also urged Professor Riaz Hassan to pursue his original research interviews with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, even if it's of interest to intelligence agencies.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: The point I would make is that he, in my view, should undertake his research, and, um, he needs to be aware that, obviously, research of that sort might excite considerable interest and I hope he would be, in appropriate circumstances, willing to disclose information that would assist the broader Australian community.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Margot O'Neill, Lateline.

***

Uni bans books on jihad. Herald-Sun 14.09.06

THE University of Melbourne has been forced to remove from its library so-called hate books that may breach new anti-terror sedition laws.

Three books on militant jihad and arguing for martyrdom, including suicide bombings, have been removed from shelves in the Baillieu library at the university. An honours student requesting access to one of the books has already been refused permission to borrow or even view it.

Melbourne University made the censorship decision on the basis that federal authorities could argue the books may be used to encourage terrorism by students.

.....the University of Melbourne's lawyers and library officials have gone a step further, taking the two banned books and a third, The Lofty Mountain, off their shelves.

The Lofty Mountain, by the same author -- Sheik Abdullah Azzam, an alleged inspiration to bin Laden -- contains similar subject matter.

Associate professor Richard Pennell, the university's lecturer in Middle Eastern history, is understood to have bought the three books over the internet more than a year ago to help teach an honours course.

"I am certainly pretty worried about the handling of these books," Dr Pennell said.

Deputy vice-chancellor Peter McPhee said academic research would suffer as a result of the laws.

"It contravenes a fundamental principle of academic life that students and academics need to be able to access research materials," he said.

***

Book bans spread. Herald-Sun 15.09.06

SEVERAL Australian universities are looking to follow the University of Melbourne's decision to remove some Islamic jihad books from their libraries because they may breach censorship or new sedition laws.

But despite federal bans on two radical books, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said researchers and lecturers were able to refer to extremist ideology in teaching an academic understanding of militant Islam.

Mr Ruddock said sedition laws included a "good faith" defence, which stated a person needed to intentionally urge the use of violence to be prosecuted.

While the banned books should not be "disseminated" by the university, lecturers were free to use them as part of lectures if they were not used to incite terrorism, Mr Ruddock's spokesman said.

"It doesn't stop someone who has bought the books before (the July decision to refuse classification) from using them for research, but you can't disseminate it.

"We would hope (that lecturers) would be responsible and lecture on the basis that these books have been refused classification."

***

Book ban stirs ugly memories. The Australian 20.09.06

Council of Australian University Librarians president Evelyn Woodberry said edicts to cut books on jihad and terrorism "go against the philosophy that we're all about ... to inform people and give a balanced view".

"It's a bit like going back to Fahrenheit 451, the burning of books ... it's not really something that we want to get involved with," Ms Woodberry said.

Ms Woodberry, chief librarian at the University of New England, said: "There is a tension between academic freedom and freedom of access to information."

Australian National University terrorism expert Clive Williams said he was against banning books: "Where do you stop? There are anarchist texts and all sorts of things that also fall into this category," he said.

"It's a fairly useless exercise because there are always going to be texts that you can access that are revolutionary."

The penalty for breaching an RC ruling was stiffest in the Northern Territory: individuals could face a $22,000 fine or two years' jail and a body corporate could faced a fine of $220,000.

***

Fear of the law on terror. The Australian 20.09.06

The legislation's lack of clarity will lead to self-censorship and hinder academics seeking to understand terrorism, write George Williams and Edwina MacDonald.

ACADEMIC freedom is essential to the work of Australian universities. Their role in educating students and advancing human knowledge depends on academics and students working and learning in an environment in which they can freely exchange ideas, challenge conventional wisdom and debate contentious issues.

***

25 September, 2006

Statement on Forced Removal of Books from a University Library 

Statement from: 
Council of Australian University Librarians 
Australian Library and Information Association 
Australian Society of Authors 
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions 

The forced removal of two books – Join the Caravan and Defence of the Muslim Lands - from the University of Melbourne Library threatens both our freedoms and our capacity to respond to terrorism. 

Australia’s liberal and tolerant way of life is based on respect for each others’ views and the freedom to state our opinions without fear of retribution or arrest. We have so many wonderful authors because they have the freedom to explore ideas and to stimulate us with their creativity. 

The freedom to read, see or hear what we want is a central element of the Australian way of life. We expect and make hearty comment when we disagree with others but we respect their right to express their views. Banning books takes away not only our right to read the opinions of others but also our right to disagree with what they say. We can’t refute what we can’t read. 

Even at the height of anticommunism in the 1950s, it was argued that we need to be able to read communist writings on the principle of “know your enemy.” In the post-September 11, 2001 world – and after the terrorist outrages in Madrid, London, Bali and Thailand – this is even more important. If we can’t read what extremists are saying, we can’t understand their thinking or present alternative views nor can we guard against their threats. 

For universities, the freedom to research and study is central. Universities exist to educate the leaders of the future and to research important matters for society. Those matters include the security of Australia as the national research priority ‘Safeguarding Australia’s frontiers’ confirms. It is absolutely essential that our students and researchers can study the difficult questions of what poses a threat to Australia whether it be environmental damage, economic risk or terrorist threat. If the students and researchers can’t read the opinions of others – including the most extreme – then they can’t research the issues effectively. 

It is the job of Australia’s university and other libraries to make available the information which enables that research. If they are constrained from doing so, we are all at risk. 

-ENDS

For more information, contact: 
Diane Costello CAUL Executive Officer 
Tel: 02 6125 2990 
Fax: 02 6248 8571 
Email: diane.costello@caul.edu.au 

Background: 

The Council of Australian University Librarians supports its members in the achievement of their objectives, especially the provision of access to, and training in the use of, scholarly information, leadership in the management of information, and contribution to the university experience. CAUL is comprised of the library directors of all Australian universities . http://www.caul.edu.au/ 

The Australian Library and Information Association is the professional organisation for the Australian library and information services sector. It seeks to empower the profession in the development, promotion and delivery of quality library and information services to the nation, through leadership, advocacy and mutual support. http://www.alia.org.au/ 

The Australian Society of Authors is the peak professional association for Australia’s literary creators. Our members are biographers, illustrators, academics, cartoonists, scientists, food and wine writers, children’s writers, ghost writers, librettists, travel writers, romance writers, translators, computer programmers, journalists, poets and novelists. http://www.asauthors.org/ 

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions is the leading international body representing the interests of library and information services and their users. It is the global voice of the library and information profession. http://www.ifla.org/ 

***

Melbourne Uni to challenge terrorism laws. ABC Lateline 02.10.06

HELEN BROWN: Last year a university historian and lecturer bought two books to help his students better understand Jihad, or the Holy War waged by some Muslims. A year later the books have had to be taken off the library shelves.

GLYNN DAVIS: We feel we had no choice because the law requires it, it has fines of up to $27,000 and imprisonment of up to two years, and we can't ask our library staff to risk that.

HELEN BROWN: The two books, by the late Abdullah Azam, a Palestinian Islamist, have been refused a classification, which means they can't be sold, displayed, loaned or hired out.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: My concern is about laws that might encourage people to carry out terrorist acts. These books have been refused classification because of the arguments in relation to Jihad that they advance. They were found not to have any substantial educational or literary merit and were refused classification because of their content.

HELEN BROWN: The University says that even keeping the books in a secure area of the library doesn't shield them from the law's effect.

GLYNN DAVIS: This is, for us, a very rare occurrence, so rare in fact, that we've had media inquiries from around the world about it because most people don't think of Australia as the sort of country that bans books.

HELEN BROWN: The ban has raised concerns among librarians and authors, who say it's heavy handed.

DEREK WHITEHEAD: I think it's very difficult to make that point in such an absolute way, that is to ban all access to this material whatsoever, which is what's effectively been done. I think that's possibly taking things too far.

HELEN BROWN: The University says the federal Attorney General has a difficult task, but wonders if the reasoning on the law has gone too far.

GLYNN DAVIS: So what we've done is written to the Attorney General in the politest possible terms, letting him know of our concerns, asking for clarification and wondering whether this was the intention of this law. After all, the effect of the law is to stop genuine scholars from accessing material in their area of expertise.

HELEN BROWN: Mr Ruddock says he'll take the University's concerns into account.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Research is important. I'd never suggest that research is something that ought not to be encouraged or utilised, and I will look at the professor's letter when I receive it and I'll be prepared to discuss, with my own officials and with State Government officials, as to whether or not, on a limited basis and a structured basis, material necessary for research can be made available for that particular purpose.

HELEN BROWN: While the books might be banned from the public, they can still be downloaded on the internet or simply bought from an online book store.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: I wouldn't want to give a legal opinion about whether or not downloading is in fact lawful, but I would certainly say that those who seek to display them, hire them out or sell them, do commit offences. In relation to the internet, it always presents a variety of new complications that we have to look at.

HELEN BROWN: The University of Melbourne says it's also seeking clarification on a third book by the same author dealing with similar subject matter. The university says the book hasn't been classified and it's unclear as to whether it's been looked at under the same rules. The University and the group of concerned librarians are likely to be disappointed if the ban continues and are keen for Mr Ruddock's response. Helen Brown, Lateline.

***

Ruddock considers access to 'terror' books. The Australian 03.10.06

ACADEMICS may be given limited access to books banned under terrorism laws, federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said. His comments came after the University of Melbourne removed three books from its library, fearful it may be breaking laws which prevent the distribution of literature which praises terrorism or terrorists.

University vice-chancellor Glyn Davis wrote a letter to Mr Ruddock seeking clarification on the laws. "The effect of the law is to stop genuine scholars from accessing material in their area of expertise,'' Professor Davis said in the letter.

"I'm not sure that was the intention of the law.''

Mr Ruddock has said he was happy to consider Prof Davis' concerns.

"There may be some way in which under appropriate supervision that can be pursued,'' Mr Ruddock told ABC TV.

"Of course I am happy to look at those who would argue that for research purposes there might need to be limited access to particular publications.

"I'm surprised in a sense that this hasn't happened before in relation to a wide range of material that is refused classification.''

***

Your Say: Banning books. The Age 03.10.06

Do you support the removal of books refused classification by the Office of Film and Literature Classification?

***

Ruddock to rethink ban on 'hate books'. The Australian 04.10.06

National Tertiary Education Union president Carolyn Alport said the fact the books - written by the man known as "The Godfather of jihad", Abdullah Azam - were available online made the ban ridiculous.

"It's rather silly, when you can obtain these publications through the internet," she said.

"It's heavy-handed."

Education Minister Julie Bishop yesterday warned academics attempting to study terrorism to obey the law.

"Academics undertaking research must ensure their work is ethical and legal," she said.

"They should exercise judgment with regard to their sources of information, and are expected to abide by the law and the need to protect Australia's national security."

***

Throw the book at 'em. The Australian Editorial 04.10.06

Government must tread carefully when restricting jihadi texts.

While it is perfectly legitimate to question whether taxpayers should be funding inadequate and biased research, preventing access to primary sources is another matter. And as The Australian reports today, the works in question are freely available on the internet – allowing would-be terrorists to read them, but not academics seeking to understand and prevent their behaviour. It is already illegal to incite violence, and a far-reaching legal apparatus exists to tackle racial and ethnic vilification. While the books singled out by the Government may be inflammatory, many similarly offensive titles will continue to be sold. Barring access to publications should be used only as a last resort.

***

Book ban anger: it will hinder freedoms. SMH 04.10.06

BANNING books because they contain arguments that are disagreeable or offensive is a self-defeating exercise, the Council of University Librarians says.

The council's executive officer, Diane Costello, said banning two militant Islamic books under anti-terrorism laws would only serve to make them inaccessible to "people doing the right thing".

"How can you refute arguments or understand the thinking of the people who are making these arguments if you can't have access to them?" she said. People with sinister motives could still obtain them through the internet.

The matter came to a head when the vice-chancellor of Melbourne University, Glyn Davis, wrote to Mr Ruddock complaining that the university had to remove the books from its library.

Professor Davis was seeking clarification and questioning whether the intent of the anti-terrorism laws was to bar access to such books by academics.

Mr Ruddock's spokesman said yesterday the letter had not been received. The university said it had been sent about 10 days ago.

Mr Ruddock said he would consider allowing limited access by researchers. "There may be some way in which, under appropriate supervision, that can be pursued."

His spokesman could not elaborate on the details of supervision, saying this would be worked out. He said the general ban would not be lifted. "The Attorney-General makes no apology for withdrawing books … that can incite impressionable young people."

Professor Davis said yesterday said he welcomed academics being allowed limited access.

***

Students burn books to protest book ban. SMH 11.10.06

It wasn't exactly akin to demonstrations in wartime Germany, but a book burning ceremony at Melbourne University added heat to a smouldering political debate.

A small group of students gathered outside the university's Baillieu library to protest against the federal government's sedition laws and the banning of two books.

Students - some dressed as "thought police" and wearing Philip Ruddock masks - symbolically burned pages from a handful of books to protest against the government infringing on their "intellectual freedoms" and free speech.

Student Union president Jessie Giles said the demonstration aimed to highlight that the bans were no different from the politically motivated book burnings of the past.

"These books are relevant to our studies and we have a right to access them ... we're all mature adults here and can make up our own minds," Ms Giles said.

"I don't think anyone's going to be turned into a terrorist by going into the Baillieu Library and taking a book off the shelf."

"It's more about political point scoring than making Australia a better place to live.

Demonstrators handed out flyers to passers-by, advising them how to access the banned books online.

"Our position is we'll continue to make this information available to students until the books are back on the shelves," Ms Giles said.

***

Melbourne writer, Christopher Bantick's opinions on the book bans.

Thought police seize control. New.com.au 19.10.06

In the October Newsletter of the Australian Society of Authors, it was reported that in Wollongong recently, poets from the South Coast Writers' Centre were denied permission to read political and religious poetry during National Poetry Week. Whereas in Melbourne, so the ASA notes, "buskers in Bourke Street Mall are now forbidden to sing political or religious songs".

But if the banning of books is symbolic, it still does not remove the Federal Government's culpability in undermining freedom of speech. In a letter to the ASA, federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock wrote: "The Government is keen to ensure that inflammatory material is not used to encourage the naive and impressionable to engage in acts of terrorism."

It is a deft argument which implies the Government has the public good at heart. But the sleeper in this kind of custodial act was foretold by Ray Bradbury in the afterword to his influential book, Fahrenheit 451: "Because you don't have to burn books, do you, if the world starts to fill up with non-readers, non-learners and non-knowers?"

While George Orwell in his enduringly relevant novel, 1984, puts the intrusion of government in what people can read even more strongly: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it."

It is cold comfort but the Federal Government in banning two reputedly terrorist books is behaving true to form. On June 20, 1961, the minister for customs, Senator Henty, wasted no time in banning the book, The Trial of Lady Chatterley, by English journalist R.H. Rolph. Even though the Commonwealth Literary Censorship Board recommended after the trial that the book be available in Australia, the Government vetoed the decision.

What is palpably obvious is that the current sedition laws threaten freedom of speech in Australia and compromise free thought which is traditionally the brief of universities. But more worrying still, they reflect the lack of trust the Federal Government has in the Australian people. Banning books is the most recent manifestation of it.

***

Continue to Page 4

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com