Terrorism Book Controversy Part 4
On January 15th 2007, Channel 4 in the UK broadcast an episode of its documentary series titled Undercover Mosque. Footage of Australian Sheikh Feiz Mohammad DEATH SERIES DVDs was screened, along with footage of them being sold. This lead to an investigation be the Australian Federal Police.
***
Police probe firebrand cleric. SMH 18.01.07
Australian Federal Police are looking into DVDs featuring Sheik Feiz Mohammed, the leader of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, in Sydney's west.
NSW Premier Morris Iemma today accused the sheik of inciting terrorism in the collection of DVDs, called the Death Series.
The Federal Government said the sheik's DVD preachings were "reprehensible and offensive", Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said they were "obscene" and Mr Iemma labelled them "disgusting".
In the DVDs, which are on sale through the youth centre's website, the Sydney-born cleric urges young Muslims to be prepared to sacrifice themselves for Islam.
"The importation of hatred into Australia is totally unacceptable. These remarks and the others before them are condemned by the government."
Mr Iemma said he would urge the Federal Government to ban sales of the DVDs.
"This DVD goes a lot further than vilification," Mr Iemma told reporters in Sydney.
"The sort of incitement that the DVD encourages is incitement to acts of violence and acts of terror."
The Acting Attorney-General, Kevin Andrews, has labelled the preachings an "importation of hatred" and said an investigation had been launched.
"There is an offence in Australia, in broad terms, for a person to incite violence against another person or group of people based on political opinion or religious grounds or belief," he told reporters earlier today.
***
'Jihad' sheik to face new probe. News.com.au 19.01.07
In one video, running on the hugely popular website YouTube, he admonishes his followers in English for not "sacrificing a drop of blood" as martyrs.
Australian Federal Police said yesterday they had begun inquiries into Sheik Feiz's DVD encouraging jihad, which is believed to be unclassified in Australia and illegal to sell.
NSW Premier Morris Iemma accused the cleric yesterday of inciting terrorism.
"This DVD goes a lot further than vilification," he said. "The sort of incitement that the DVD encourages is incitement to acts of violence and acts of terror."
The YouTube video follows revelations in a British documentary that Sheik Feiz's collection of DVDs - called the Death Series - were being sold by children in the car park of a mosque in the British city of Birmingham.
In that and another series called Signs of the Hour, made about four years ago, Sheik Feiz labelled Jews "pigs" and exhorted children to jihad.
Acting Attorney-General Kevin Andrews said the matter was being investigated by the relevant authorities.
"It's offensive to the Australian people, it's reprehensible, it's particularly outrageous that certain groups in Australia, such as the Jewish community, have been highlighted in these comments and we condemn the comments," he said.
Experts believe the DVD material - recorded in 2004 - would escape federal sedition laws, which were passed in 2005 as part of the federal Government's terrorism legislation, but may fall foul of other laws.
University of NSW law lecturer Andrew Lynch said NSW racial vilification legislation might apply to Sheik Feiz's description of Jews as pigs, and the videos could be in breach of the federal criminal code, which prohibits incitement to commit an offence.
***
Sheikh sparks outrage. The Age 19.01.07
Copies were still on sale yesterday in an Islamic bookshop in the Sydney suburb of Lakemba, and on the Sydney youth centre's website.
Acting federal Attorney-General Kevin Andrews denounced the sheik's remarks as "reprehensible and offensive" and said the Government was concerned about a "developing pattern of behaviour" among some Islamic clerics. "The importation of hatred into Australia is totally unacceptable," he said.
Yesterday, NSW Premier Morris Iemma called on Canberra to use sedition laws to outlaw the DVDs. "He has gone way beyond the sort of outrageous and stupid comments made in recent times by the other sheikh," said Mr Iemma, referring to Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali. "This fellow is inciting people to commit acts of terror," Mr Iemma said.
Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said the comments were "obscene in the extreme" and called on the Government to act against the sheikh. "As I see it, Sheikh Muhammad's statements add up to an incitement to terrorism," he said. "I would say this to Sheikh Muhammad: Do not return to Australia, you are not welcome here."
***
In late February, two of the DVDs taken from the Global Islamic Youth Centre were rated PG (Religious Themes) by the Classification Board.
SIGNS OF THE HOUR Film (DVD)
Classification PG (Parental guidance recommended)
Consumer Advice Religious themes
Category Notional Sale/Hire 100%
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 27 February 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company 1 ISLAM PRODUCTIONS
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
File Number T07/608
Classification Number 4172053E
THE GRAVE Film (DVD)
Classification PG (Parental guidance recommended)
Consumer Advice Religious themes
Category Notional Sale/Hire 100%
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 28 February 2007
Author SHEIKH FEIZ MOHAMMAD
Publisher 1 ISLAM PRODUCTIONS
Production Company 1 ISLAM PRODUCTIONS
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
File Number T07/607
Classification Number 61620626
***
Classification Board
Annual Report 2006-2007
Film-other - complaints
Following media coverage of the DVDs featuring lectures by Sheik Feiz Mohammed,
36 complaints were received that the PG classifications for both The Grave
and Signs of the Hour were too low.
Complaints
A total of 407 complaints were received in 2006-07 compared with a total of 669
complaints during 2005-06. When provided with contact details, the OFLC
generally responded in writing or by telephone to complaints within 20 working
days. The two issues that attracted the highest volume of complaints were the PG
classification of the DVDs The Grave and Signs of the Hour (36
complaints) and the absence of an R 18+ classification for computer games (32
complaints).
***
Friday the 13th of April 2007 was the meeting day of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Here Ruddock proposed to crack down further on books and films that he felt promoted terrorism.
The Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock MP
Interview Transcript
Date: 13 April 2007
Location: Parliament House
Topic: Classification
Attorney General: I can report to you today that there have been some developments which I regard as very positive in relation to the issues relating to advocacy of terrorist acts.
You’d be aware that the documentation that had been submitted to Attorneys was documentation that had been prepared by Commonwealth officials alone. The reason for that was quite clear. The officials felt that they had from their ministers no guidance to be able to agree to an approach within the co-operative model in relation to dealing with classification issues.
The Commonwealth in its paper outlined how it might proceed to amend the Classification Act. In the discussions today, the State Attorneys have agreed that officers should now – and I might use the words from the actual agreed text –“Ministers agreed to request officers to report back by July on amendments to the Code and Guidelines – that’s the cooperative measure – that could be made to ensure that material that advocates terrorist acts is adequately captured.” I will put off consideration as to whether there should be any Commonwealth legislation to give officers the opportunity to deal with those issues by incorporating in the Code and if necessary in the Guidelines, provisions that will require the classification body and the Review Board to take into account advocacy. That should be advocacy that deals with, direct and indirect, encouragement of people to carry out terrorist acts.
It will address, hopefully, the matters that had been raised by particularly the Premier of New South Wales in his comments about me, and I’m pleased that there has been a substantial shift in the position that state attorneys have taken.
Journalist: On the terrorism advocacy are there many products on the market at the moment that the laws, if passed, when passed, will actually cover? Are you expecting books to be pulled from the shelves and that sort of thing?
Attorney General: No I don’t. But I think when there are issues that are brought to your attention and it becomes quite clear that the law does not permit you to deal with them, then it is important that the law be appropriately amended.
The issues that I would direct your attention are to the full range of publications that were considered two of whom were on the basis of existing law refused classification, but a number of others weren’t seen to fall within that strict definition.
And the other really relates to the matters that the Premier of New South Wales raised. I mean I don’t know whether you’re familiar with them but they related to Sheikh Mohammed who was the leader of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool in Sydney’s west. And the DVD, so that would be a product that could be refused classification, went on to urge young Moslems to be prepared to sacrifice themselves for Islam. It said: “We want children to have …” sorry. “We want to have children and offer them as soldiers in defending Islam. Teach them this. There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid.” That is a holy warrior.
“Put in their soft and tender hearts the zeal of jihad and the love of martyrdom.”
Now, I mean this is not what we normally expect in religions where you teach people to love another.
Mr Iemma called upon me to “do whatever was necessary” to have that withdrawn from sale. And I couldn’t do anything because the classification regime would not have seen that as inciting a criminal act which is the precise words of the Code that now operates. But advocacy in the form that that term is used in the Criminal Code introduced into this code, would enable that issue to be dealt with and hopefully officers will agree that that sensible approach should be followed.
Journalist: There’s another sheikh that makes controversial comments from time to time or …
Attorney General: I can’t imagine who that would be.
Journalist: … week to week. This week he’s called on …
Attorney General: He’s a fine Australian is he?
Journalist: I’m not sure. They’re your words.
Attorney General: Well he claims that, I think.
Journalist: Yeah.
Attorney General: Better than the Prime Minister.
Journalist: Do you agree with those comments?
Attorney General: Obviously not.
Journalist: He’s called on Australian Muslims last week to join the trenches with Iran to support them in their fight against the western world. Is there any scope for him to be charged under racial vilification laws or anything like that?
Attorney General: I would have to look at the issues and take legal advice on whether or not, by those words, he was advocating terrorist acts. I suspect not, but I wouldn’t want to give a definitive opinion in the form of legal advice in relation to that.
The point I would make is that he claims to be a fine Australian – better than the Prime Minister. I would say that anybody who argues that Australians should join Iran in the trenches, as you said, when it is involved in the development of the nuclear fuel cycle, in a way which puts it outside of the internationally agreed norms and supervision, is not arguing in the best interests of Australia. That’s the point I’d make. And it’s inappropriate to claim that you’re better than somebody else when you’re not arguing in Australia’s interests.
Journalist: But you don’t think he stepped over some criminal code?
Attorney General: Well I don’t give legal advice in relation to these matters. If he has, they’re matters that will be taken up by the Australian Federal Police and considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. But I do make the point that Australia’s interests are the same interests of the international community – that is that Iran ought to be a good international citizen. Those who barrack that you should get in the trenches beside them are not barracking for Australia or for the international community.
Journalist: Back on the books and DVDs, will Australia be a safer place when these laws are toughened up?
Attorney General: If you think about these issues in the context, not of how you and I might read particular material, I mean if I read material of that sort I would dismiss it.
I think most Australians would. But in these matters, you have to think about how in the impressionable eyes sometimes of relatively young people – sometimes even people of relatively diminished capacity read these matters, when they hear or look at that sort of content encouraging them to be involved in acts of martyrdom along with a promise of a better life hereafter.
My view of a life hereafter has always been that loving your neighbours might help secure it, but the idea that killing your neighbours will achieve that I think is something which is abhorrent to most Australians. But the real concern is ‘would it, being advocated in that way, lead to some people thinking they should act in that way?’
If you look at the fact that people have been abroad and trained with terrorist organisations. You look at the fact that we’ve had some people who have gone into other countries, and Iraq and Afghanistan are countries in point at the moment, and engaged in suicide bombing, you ask yourself how did they get themselves to that point?
Is it something that they woke up one morning and said ‘gee, this is something I’ve got to do?’ Or is it something that was put into their mind by this sort of advocacy?
Will Australia be a safer place? If you stopped one person thinking of conducting themselves in that way it would be a safer place. Okay?
***
Ban on hate books. Herald-Sun 13.04.07
Imported material will be stopped at Customs if it is found to glorify, praise or encourage acts of terrorism.
"We are not going to allow material to be out there saying terrorism is a good idea," Mr Ruddock told the Herald Sun yesterday.
"This is a zero-tolerance approach to terrorism.
"Terrorism acts are a specific and highly dangerous threat to Australian society. Material which advocates people undertake such acts should not be available for this reason alone."
Mr Ruddock said the new law would aim at removing offensive material from the shelves rather than prosecuting authors or speakers.
He said the sedition laws covered incitement to terrorism offences and required a "very high standard of proof".
"The classification scheme targets the material, not the person who creates it. Sometime it's hard to identify the right person, or they are outside our jurisdiction.
"This proposal is intended to get inflammatory material inciting terrorism out of circulation without having to conduct a criminal prosecution."
***
Federal Attorney General proposes tough new laws on material advocating terrorism. ABC Online 13.04.07
PHILIP RUDDOCK: They're not sufficient at the moment because the test that has to be satisfied is of a higher order, that it is has to promote, incite or instruct rather than just advocate.
And the point that I'm making is that when you come to look at a range of publications, we saw that in relation to a number of books that dealt with terrorist acts, some were refused classification, others weren't. And one of the reasons was that the test is a very high test.
LINDY KERIN: But the plan has sparked intense debate.
Maree McCaskill from the Australian Publishers Association says it's an attack on fundamental right of freedom of speech
MAREE MCCASKILL: Publishers would accept that terrorism is something that we would not wish to encourage. But the difficulty is that once you start legislating thew ability of a government to ban books or ban all types of publishing, then you have a problem that it could be the thin edge of the wedge.
We've already seen a number of publications taken out of libraries and taken off shelves that have been published and been around for some time, and now the government has removed those.
I have a real concern that this is about freedom of speech. It is about censorship and once you start allowing governments to censor as they feel fit, then you give them a very wide opportunity to start being the arbiter of all sorts of things that should be banned or removed from shelves.
LINDY KERIN: Philip Ruddock accepts the new laws will be met by protests from civil libertarians, but he believes the measures will be supported by the wider community.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: The point I'd make is that when you are dealing with the advocacy of terrorism, which takes and puts people's lives at risk, I think people say, look on balance, this is not a matter of people having a right to look at it, it's a question of whether in fact it encourages people to involve themselves in committing acts of this sort.
***
Move to ban terror books. ABC Online 13.04.07
New South Wales Attorney-General John Hatzistergos says the states will consider supporting reasonable changes, but he is urging caution.
"It would mean additional work on the part of those authorities and going through material," he said.
"But also you could have a different view expressed by different law enforcement authorities about what the publication does or does not do.
"At this point in time the board has operated reasonably well, it's been a co-operative model."
***
States to tighten control on 'terror' books, DVDs. ABC Online 14.04.07
Mr Ruddock says a toughening of current classification laws will help stem home-grown terrorism.
"You ask yourself, how did they get themselves to that point?" he said.
"Is it something they woke up one morning and said, gee, this is something I've always wanted to do or is it something that was put into their minds by this sort of advocacy.
"Will Australia be a safer place if you stopped one person thinking of conducting themselves in that way? It would be a safer place."
***
Following Friday's meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the old news that the the Classification Board had passed Sheik Feiz Mohammed's DVDs made the headlines. Following applications by the Federal Police, SIGN OF THE HOUR and THE GRAVE were rated PG (Religious Themes) on the 27th, and 28th of February. Note that the OFLC database does not seem to list them ever passing a DVD titled THE DEATH SERIES.
Islamic pro-terrorism hate film gets PG rating. News.com.au 15.04.07
.... the Office of Film and Literature Classification has ruled that The Death Series is suitable to be bought and watched by children.
The shock decision has seen the nation's peak censorship body slammed as weak and out of touch by family groups and the Jewish community.
It has also made a mockery of the Attorney-General's plans to bring in tough new laws that ban material which "advocates" terrorism.
The PG decision comes as Australian-born Sheik Feiz, who is in exile in Lebanon, is still preaching to Australians by phone.
The films urge parents to make their children holy warriors and martyrs, and praises jihad as the pinnacle of Islam.
The radical sheik makes snorting noises on the films as he vilifies Jews as the "army of pigs".
He blames a lack of courage for martyrdom on the battlefield for the "humiliation" of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Guantanamo.
The censors' finding means children of any age can watch the films - but it is advised under-15s have a parent present.
The OFLC finding said the sheik's calls to "jihad" and "martyrdom" were ambiguous.
And it found that comments vilifying Jews as an "army of pigs" and saying "behind me is a Jew, come kill him" were mitigated by the context.
***
Terror film PG rating. Sky News 15.04.07
Australia's chief censor has denied reports his office gave a PG rating to a film that promotes terrorism.
A report in News Limited papers alleged the DVD, featuring firebrand Sheik Feiz Mohammad, urged children to martyr themselves in the name of Islam and referred to Jews as pigs.
However, Office of Film and Literature Classification director Des Clark has told Sky News he has seen the film and it contains absolutely no incitement to violence or overt racial hate speech.
But Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock has suggested an urgent change is now required in the country's censorship laws.
Mr Ruddock says he wants an agreement within the next two weeks, saying Sheik Mohammed's film clearly advocates terrorist acts.
But, the Attorney-General admits he hasn't viewed the DVD.
***
PM urged to take action over PG rating on radical Islamic films. ABC Online 15.04.07
Acting New South Wales Premier John Watkins says the Prime Minister should step-in over the decision to give a series of radical Islamic films a PG rating.
Mr Watkins says the state could do nothing to stop the Office of Film and Literature Classification giving the material a PG rating.
He says the office has made a mistake in classifying the films.
"I'm disgusted that any film calling for martyrdom and murder and describing anyone from any religion as a pig could be determined suitable for our children," he said.
"I'm calling on the Prime Minister John Howard to take action that the classification bureau would not."
***
Warning over 'disgusting' martyr film. SMH 15.04.07
Shadow Attorney-General Senator Joe Ludwig today urged Mr Ruddock to request an immediate review of the Office of Film and Literature Classification decision.
Mr Ruddock has already said today he will ask states and territories to urgently change censorship laws so that films praising terrorists can be banned.
Mr Ruddock said he had instructed his officials to seek agreement from the states within two weeks, following the classification of the DVD.
"Mr Ruddock must explain how a jihad video by Sheik Feiz Mohammed was given the same rating as The Neverending Story and Back to the Future parts one, two and three," Senator Ludwig said in a statement.
Senator Ludwig said Mr Ruddock was one of only four people with authority to seek a review - the others being the publisher, the person who applied for classification and a person who has been seriously aggrieved by the material.
"As a matter of urgency, Mr Ruddock must seek an immediate review," Senator Ludwig said.
"This is a film that urges parents to send their kids on jihad, and attacks Jewish people - this is completely unacceptable."
Mr Ruddock said today the test of whether a publication promoted, incited or instructed people to perform a criminal act was inadequate and material that advocated terrorism should be refused classification.
He said the states had agreed to toughen laws for material that praised terrorism following passage of federal terrorism legislation in 2005, and there should be no further delays in the states enacting the changes.
***
The Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock MP
Media Release 64/2007
15 April 2007
States should agree to New Test for Terrorism Material
Attorney General Philip Ruddock will ask the States and Territories to urgently approve changes to censorship laws after revelations that videos praising terrorism have been given a PG rating.
Mr Ruddock said the current test of whether a publication "promotes, incites or instructs” people to do a criminal act was inadequate and that material which "advocates" terrorism should be refused classification.
He said he was pleased the States had finally agreed the laws for material that praised terrorism should be toughened, but wanted no further delays.
"I have instructed my officials to see if they can gain the agreement of the States within two weeks with a view to settling this issue. I don’t want to wait until the next scheduled meeting of the Censorship Ministers in July," Mr Ruddock said.
"If the States and Territories continue to resist, as they have done for more than a year, then I may be forced to go it alone and make this change to the Commonwealth’s Classification Act."
He said advocacy was the same terminology agreed by all state and territory governments for the 2005 terrorism legislation.
Advocate in the Criminal Code refers to action that directly or indirectly counsels, urges, provides instruction on doing a terrorist act or directly praises the doing of a terrorist act where there is a risk that such praise might lead a person to engage in a terrorist act.
Under Mr Ruddock’s proposal material that contains depictions and/or descriptions that "advocate” terrorist acts would be refused classification and could not be sold or distributed.
The Attorney-General said the "advocacy" test was the most appropriate way to deal with material like the Death Series DVDs made by Sheik Feiz Mohammad of the Global Islamic Youth Centre.
"Whether a not a product should be refused classification will still be a matter for the independent Classification Board, or the Review Board, to determine."
He added that if the States and Territories quickly agreed to a new test, the process of public consultation could commence.
"The Australian Government considers that direct praise of a terrorist act carries the risk that someone – usually the more impressionable and younger in the community – might be inspired to commit a similar terrorist act," Mr Ruddock said.
***
The Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock MP
Transcript
Date: 16 April 2007
Place: John Laws Show
Topic: Classification laws
John Laws: These videos have been around for a very long time. Why did your office become involved in this matter again last week or over the weekend?
Attorney General: Well, I've been involved for something like 12 months in trying to get the States to agree to a tougher test for what I think is material that advocates, particularly, terrorism.
I looked at the law that applied and the law at the moment is a very significant test and the test is whether a publication promotes, incites or instructs people to do a criminal act. What the Classification Board has done at the request of the police, because these matters were referred to the Classification Board, is determine they do not promote, incite or instruct in doing a criminal act - even if it's a terrorist act.
Now, I think the test needs to be a lower test. I asked the state attorneys to agree to that and they said 'no'.
I asked the State Attorneys to agree to have officers look at it and they said 'yes'.
When the officers looked at it the Commonwealth said this is how we can do it and the states said 'no, we're not going to be a party to it'.
Then at the meeting last Friday when I raised the matter again and particularly the quotes of Premier Iemma in relation to Sheikh Mohammad I used those quotes and they said oh look, we'll have officials look at it again. And that's going to be another six months.
John Laws: And in the meantime this stuff is floating around on the market and is readily available to people.
Attorney General: That's right. So at the weekend when I became aware, and I wasn't aware before that it had been classified PG, I have asked all the state attorneys to agree to officials meeting in the next week to settle the form of the amendment to the Code and to do the consultation that is necessary, and for ministers to agree out of session which they can, to the change.
The change would be a very simple one, but I think it would then enable the Classification Board to deal with videos of this sort.
John Laws: Okay. don't quite understand why your office didn't know about it. Why did it take years for you to be told about it?
Attorney General: Well, I haven't issued instructions to be advised of every classification decision.
John Laws: But one would think anything as sensitive as that would be brought to your attention automatically.
Attorney General: Well, I have directed that that should happen but they make 5,000 or so decisions a year and they haven't been in the practice of bringing them to the attention of attorneys. I've said in relation to sensitive issues like this they should and I've given that direction
John Laws: Okay. But why does the Office of Film and Literature Classification think that something relating to terrorism in the climate in which we now live in this country and in fact the world is acceptable to be released on the open market?
Attorney General: They make a decision in accordance with the law, and that's why I've been addressing the question of the law.
John Laws: Well the law's stupid.
Attorney General: The law doesn't permit them to deal with those products and that's what I've been telling the state attorneys and they were playing games with it. When they came to a view on Friday that I think the game was up because of some of the quotes, they agreed to look at it by July, and what I've said over the weekend is this process needs to be expedited and they need to deal with it seriously.
When I've got the Deputy Premier out there saying you've got to do something about it. When I've got the Premier out there saying you've got to do something about it, I'm surprised that attorney generals don't have the same sense of urgency.
John Laws: But can't you control it? I mean you've had control of it up until now.
Attorney General: No. Classification is a co-operative scheme involving the Commonwealth and the states and territories. I mean theoretically I could amend the Commonwealth Classification Act and I might do that if the states aren't prepared to agree. But when you've got a cooperative scheme in place, my view is you've got to give it a chance to work.
We've seen the way in which they've delayed it but they said on Friday they'd deal with and now I'm saying it's got to be dealt with in the next fortnight.
John Laws: Yeah. You see, who are the people? Who's the Office of Film and Literature Classification? Who are the people involved?
Attorney General: Well, the Chairman of it is a fellow called Des Clark who is a former Lord Mayor of Melbourne. There's a fellow called Hunt - Paul Hunt, who's the Deputy Chair, and there are I think about another 20 or so classifiers who are appointed in a process in which the Commonwealth goes through identifying who are suitable people to undertake this task. We consult with the states in relation to their suitability and then appointments are made.
John Laws: Who appoints them?
Attorney General: Well essentially the Governor General in counsel, but after a process which involves the States in assessing their suitability.
John Laws: I see. So this is not a totally federally controlled issue?
Attorney General: No it's not.
John Laws: Why don't you make it one?
Attorney General: Well we have a Constitution. I mean if you imagine that you could enact measures using the Corporations Power on the basis that these things are always distributed by corporations, you might have a Commonwealth code that deals with corporations and a state code that deals with individuals.
At the moment we've got a co-operative measure in place. I've really got to make it work, but I am looking at whether the Commonwealth should legislate if the States are going to play around with this issue again.
John Laws: It seems to me that ... I just can't understand how this kind of material could be given a PG rating. I mean that's like putting Finding Nemo or The Never Ending Story on the same level as hate videos. So these videos should not only be taken off the market. The people who made them should be prosecuted.
Attorney General: Well, I mean we've looked at whether prosecution is possible. I mean what you find John when you're dealing with these sorts of issues - and I deal with them all the time - is that there is a group of people out there in the Australian community and in the end they get to senate committees and so on when you are dealing with legislation of this sort. The test that has to be satisfied in order to prosecute somebody for a criminal offence means you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the behaviour would lead to terror ... that is being encouraged would occur.
In other words the test is one of beyond, it's the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt - not the balance of probability, not a view that some people might be influenced. You have to prove in relation to these matters that people are promoting, inciting and instructing in relation to criminal acts, namely terrorist acts, to be able to deal with it adequately.
John Laws: Are the federal police still investigating this Sheikh Feiz Mohammad?
Attorney General: Well, I don't report on operational issues but they asked that this material be assessed by the Classification Review Board.
John Laws: I just can't understand how anybody with half a brain, even an ex Lord Mayor, could consider any of that stuff to be at PG level. How they just didn't find it so offensive and bring it to your attention or the attention of the federal police is beyond me. I mean they're not doing their job properly.
Attorney General: Well, no John. They have to make decisions on classification in terms of the Code, and it deals with all these things like pornography and child paedophilia and so on.
But when it comes to dealing with the advocacy of criminal acts it's a very heavy test that has to be met. And it's that test that I've sought to lower to give them power to be able to deal with these issues where the State attorneys general have been playing ducks and drakes.
John Laws: How, under any circumstances, could we accept Jewish people being referred to as 'pigs' in Australia?
Attorney General: Well I don't think anybody should be referred to in language of that sort. They are issues that might be able to be brought to the attention of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission who might bring people in and counsel them, but that's the only alternative method if you're not going to classify it and refuse it to be marketed and sold.
John Laws: Yep. I just really fail to understand how intelligent people, more than 20 of them ... I don't know if they all look at all of this stuff. I suppose they take it in shifts do they?
Attorney General: No. Look, they do bring together a panel and I did speak through my staff to the Director and he said they saw it as being a whole lot of ranting.
I haven't seen the videos myself but I've seen texts of what has been said and I don't regard the material as being suitable for distribution.
John Laws: No. Well I'm glad you don't, but you'd better tell somebody who makes these decisions that they'd better start looking at it the same way that you look at it.
Attorney General: Well I'm pushing this pretty hard with the state attorneys so I tell you I think I'll send this transcript around to them.
John Laws: Yeah well that would ... can I have a copy of that transcript?
Attorney General: We'll get it for you John.
John Laws: That's very good of you.
Attorney General: Okay.
John Laws: It's good to talk to you Attorney. Thank you very much for your time.
Attorney General: Always a pleasure.
***
Rod Hulls
Victorian Attorney-General
Media Release
DATE: Sunday, April 29, 2007
RUDDOCK FOLLOWS STATE LEAD ON CENSORSHIP LAWS
The federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has backflipped and agreed to release a discussion paper on censorship laws this week in a move welcomed by Victorian Attorney-General, Rob Hulls.
Mr Hulls said he was pleased that Mr Ruddock, rather than acting unilaterally, had eventually agreed with his state and territory colleagues that any changes required proper community consultation.
“Censorship is a joint responsibility of the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, and the current cooperative system strikes a good balance between considerations such as artistic merit and community concerns about works that promote or incite violence,” Mr Hulls said.
“I and my state and territory colleagues trust that we will not see a repeat of Mr Ruddock’s attack on the scheme’s cooperative intent and spirit at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) meeting earlier this month.
“Mr Ruddock tried to force through draconian changes in censorship laws in a move that circumvented due process, including public consultation. In a democratic country like Australia, there is no place for arrogant chief law officers who treat censorship as their personal fiefdom.
“The federal Attorney-General has already shown his contempt for due process and proper consultation with his unilateral decision to appoint the Prime Minister’s friend, Donald McDonald, as the director of the Classification Board.
“We all made it clear at SCAG that under the cooperative arrangement, Mr Ruddock needed to take into account the views of all states and territories, and we all totally rejected this appointment.
“Yet he decided to ride roughshod over those concerns and go ahead with this outrageous appointment.”
Mr Hulls said any changes in censorship laws must strike a considered balance between freedom of expression and community concern over material advocating terrorist acts.
The joint Commonwealth, State and Territory Government discussion paper will seek views on whether amendments to Classification Code and Guidelines are required to make clear the basis on which material can be banned.
Mr Hulls said the discussion paper reflected the needs of the different jurisdictions to find a solution to this difficult issue, and he urged Mr Ruddock to abide by the spirit of cooperation and consultation.
“No one wants a repeat of Mr Ruddock’s attempts to unilaterally and cynically force his will on the people simply to score political points against colleagues in other jurisdictions,” he said.
“I am sure that if we draw on the experience of anti-terrorism laws and the censorship system from all jurisdictions, an effective solution can be found.
“We must be vigilant to ensure that any changes are clearly defined so as not to inadvertently catch materials which simply express different points of view.”
“If there are gaps in the laws with respect to material advocating terrorist acts, they will be filled, but we also need to strike the right balance between stopping such material and maintaining our fundamental freedoms.
“The Bracks Government is determined to ensure appropriate measures are in place to stamp out materials advocating terrorism, while at the same time respecting rights to freedom of speech.”
***
The Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock MP
Transcript
Date: 1 May 2007
Place: John Laws Radio Program
Topic: Discussion paper on uniform
classification measures.
Journalist: Last time I talked to you … you’ve made that very clear about Terry Hicks and David Hicks. But last time we talked we talked about classification of that Sheikh Feiz Mohammed DVD, the so-called Hate Series. Can you tell me where you are in terms of your bid to get the states to adopt uniform measures for classifying that sort of material?
Attorney General: Well you know I said when I spoke to you on that occasion I wanted to act on the matter urgently and my officials have been talking to the state officials and we’ve prepared a discussion paper because it does require consultation. We can’t release the discussion paper until we’ve had all the state attorneys agree that it should be released and at the moment the Queensland Attorney is raising questions about whether that release should occur. He said he’s not approving of it at the moment. I’ve had my officials go back and say do you know all the others have agreed – why don’t you? And I’m hoping he’ll move today and I’m hoping all your Queensland listeners will encourage him in allowing for the release of that discussion paper so we can get on with it.
Journalist: Yeah, well we should get on with it. I’m surprised that he hasn’t responded and he could only respond in the affirmative if he was really concerned about the future of Australia’s youth if they get hold of this stuff. I mean it’s dangerous. This Hate Series is very, very dangerous.
Attorney General: Well I simply make the point I don’t know what his motives are. He hasn’t said he’s opposed to the measure. He said he’s opposed to the release of the discussion paper. We can’t proceed with it until the discussion paper is out there. I’ve had my officials go back to Queensland and say all the others have agreed, even those who have said they’ve got some doubts such as the Victorian who always seems to be able to hedge his bets. But I’ve told him that New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia – they’ve all agreed. Queensland is the only one that hasn’t. I’ve had my officials go back to them today.
Journalist: Okay. Can’t you act unilaterally? Can’t you just tell them you’re going to do it?
Attorney General: Yes, and I’ve said to them that if they’re seen to be standing in our way we will, but that would require Commonwealth legislation. I’ve certainly had our officials … I’ve had Cabinet agree that we should in fact move on it if the states don’t. We want the cooperative scheme to work. We’re going to give it its best shot, but we won’t be giving it the best shot if we don’t get that discussion paper out there so that we can undertake the consultation and then we can put in place a new code. But if the states aren’t willing to do it we’ll amend the Act, but that will take longer. I mean we’d do it during the budget session but we’d be looking about May or June before we could actually get around to doing that.
Journalist: How much time will you give Queensland?
Attorney General: Well, I’m giving them today. I’m wanting them to agree to the release of the discussion paper because then we can get on and see whether there are any serious views – that the way in which we’re proposing to it has some unforeseen consequences. I mean I’m always open to looking at people’s views when they can see it. But I want to have this in place within the next few weeks.
Journalist: Okay. I hope Peter Beattie … hey Pete, tell your Attorney to pick up the telephone.
Attorney General: Yeah, well Kerry Shine’s a nice bloke and he’s eminently reasonable. He’s never been the stickler on these things that some of his colleagues have been but on this particular matter he’s said he’s not approving of the release of the discussion paper. We’re going back to him and saying all the others have agreed. Will you?
Journalist: Yeah okay. And the sooner the better as far as you’re concerned.
Attorney General: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Journalist: Okay. Thank you very much for your time Attorney General.
Attorney General: It’s always a pleasure John.
Journalist: Thank you very much. Bye.
***
The Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock MP
Media Release 077/2007
3 May 2007
ACTION ON MATERIAL ADVOCATING TERRORISM
Community concern over material that advocates terrorism will be swiftly addressed through new laws, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.
A discussion paper on proposed laws has been released for public comment. The laws propose banning Australian publication of material advocating terrorist acts.
“I am delighted that my State and Territory colleagues have agreed that the proposal can now be put out for public consultation,” Mr Ruddock said.
“Terrorist acts are a specific and highly dangerous threat to Australian society and material which advocates people undertake such acts should not be available. I am pleased that we are now one step closer to getting this kind of material out of circulation.
“I would like to thank my State and Territory colleagues for their fast response to my request to get this issue dealt with quickly .
“In particular, I acknowledge the efforts of Margaret Keech, the Queensland Minister responsible for censorship, for securing the Queensland Government’s approval to release the discussion paper.
“It is gratifying that the States and Territories have worked cooperatively and constructively with the Commonwealth and had quickly agreed to the proposal and process of public consultation.
“I am committed to a fast resolution of this important issue,” Mr Ruddock said.
The Material That Advocates Terrorist Acts Discussion Paper is available at www.ag.gov.au under ‘Classification’ and follow the links. Submissions are due to the Department by 29 May 2007.
***
MATERIAL THAT ADVOCATES TERRORIST ACTS DISCUSSION PAPER
1 MAY 2007
1 BACKGROUND
There are community concerns about the public availability of material that advocates people commit terrorist acts. It is not certain that the national classification scheme adequately captures such material.
This paper therefore outlines a proposal for amendments to the national Classification Code and the Classification guidelines to ensure that material that advocates terrorist acts is refused classification.
Submissions are sought on the proposal by no later than 29 May 2007.
Submissions may be sent in writing –
by email: classificationreview@ag.gov.au
by post: Attn: Kerri-Ann Smith Classification Review Classification Policy Branch Australian Attorney-General’s Department Robert Garran Offices 2-4 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600
Contact officer: Kerri-Ann Smith (02) 6250 6708
Status of the Discussion Paper
This discussion paper does not necessarily represent the views of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General or any individual Attorney-General.
Confidentiality
All submissions will be treated as public unless the author clearly indicates to the contrary. A request made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for access to a submission marked confidential will be determined in accordance with that Act.
2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The proposal is to amend the Classification Code and guidelines so that publications, films and computer games that advocate terrorist acts are refused classification.
The proposal is to amend the National Classification Code to include the requirement that publications, films and computer games that ‘advocate terrorist acts’ be refused classification. This would be done by adding, ‘advocates terrorist acts’, in Item 1 (RC Classification) of each table (publications, films and computer games).
The meaning of the terms ‘advocate’ and ‘terrorist act’ would be explained in the amendments – by using terms similar to the provisions in the Criminal Code definitions – as either definitions in the Code or part of the List of Terms in the guidelines. In addition, the Explanatory Statement would provide further explanation and discussion of the terms and the types of material that would be unlikely to be considered to advocate terrorist acts such as bona fide articles by investigative journalists, satirical pieces or patriotic battle movies. It is intended that only material that advocates terrorist acts as strictly described would be refused classification.
Attachment 1 provides an indication of how the Code and guidelines might look should these proposals be agreed to by State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministers.
The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 prevent the import or export of some material. The Regulations repeat the language of item 1 of the Classification Code. To ensure consistency between restrictions on material distributed within the country and material entering or leaving the country, it would also be necessary to amend these regulations to include as a prohibited import or export material that advocates terrorist acts.
3 LACK OF CERTAINTY
Doubts exist as to the extent to which the present law ensures all material that advocates terrorist acts is refused classification. The lack of clarity is illustrated by a combination of public concern about various material available as books, DVDs or on the internet; the differences of interpretation in Board and Review Board review decisions which overturn Board decisions applying the same criteria to the same material; and litigation in the Federal Court (for which judgment has yet to be handed down) over the interpretation of the phrase. Further litigation may result in a clearer understanding of the current law but it is doubtful that it will supply real clarity anytime soon.
The national classification scheme requires material to be refused classification if it ‘promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence’. An alternative category for refusal of classification of material advocating terrorist acts is if material deals with matters of violence in such a way that it ‘offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety of a reasonable adult to the extent that [it] should not be classified’. However, this provision has not been actively used in classifying material that might be considered to encourage terrorist acts.
The elements of the term ‘promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence’ are not fully explained in either the guidelines or by judicial consideration. There remains uncertainty around the classification of material which may more insidiously encourage people – whether or not they are naïve and impressionable – to commit terrorist acts. Material may be expressed in a way that does not clearly attract the operation of the provisions that would require it to be refused classification.
Arguably, terrorist acts are of sufficient concern and pose such potential danger to the community that material that advocates people commit them should be specifically identified for refusal of classification. The classification scheme should be clear enough that the impressionable and vulnerable in the community are protected from material which encourages people to carry out acts of terrorism through techniques such as praising terrorist acts or issuing calls for action based on ideological or religious duty.
Directly praise
It is unclear to what extent the existing term ‘promote’ would include ‘praise’. The proposed definition of ‘advocate’ would cover ‘praising’, including material that supports a particular terrorist attack or method of terrorist attack.
Example: An article published by a fundamentalist religious organisation describes the action of an individual who has detonated a suicide bomb amidst a market place of civilian shoppers, causing death and mayhem. The article directly praises the particular act, its deadly effect on ‘the enemy’ and the bomber’s consequent martyrdom. It claims that the person would be assured a place in heaven.
Under the current classification scheme, the article is about a ‘matter of crime or violence’ (which is clearly an act of terrorism) but it is not clear that the elements of ‘promotion’ or ‘incitement’ to do the same, or ‘instruction’ in how to build or detonate a suicide bomb are satisfied. However, ‘direct praise’ as in this sort of article carries the risk that a person reading such literature might be influenced to commit a similar terrorist act.
Indirectly counsel
Example: A pamphlet distributed at a cultural festival, or a DVD of a speech adopts words and / or tone which indirectly advocate committing a terrorist act. It does not provide detailed step-by-step instruction on how to carry out any specific action. It does not expressly urge anyone to take action. It does not expressly praise an action.
However, through its text, tone and context, the material may indirectly counsel, urge or provide instruction in how to commit a terrorist act. It may not be a dispassionate exposé of serious issues. It may through its text or tone indirectly urge or instruct the reader to commit a terrorist act by for example causing death or serious harm to sections of the community to advance a political, ideological or religious cause.
Under the current scheme, it is about a ‘matter of crime or violence’ (terrorist act) but there would be no certainty that the element of ‘promote’ is satisfied, nor direct ‘incitement’ to act, nor direct ‘instruction’ on how to attack the weaknesses. However, it may be regarded as indirectly ‘counselling, urging or instructing’ doing a terrorist act by its inspirational tone and exhortations.
4 WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF THE CHANGES?
The Classification Scheme targets the material and gets it out of circulation. It will be illegal under State and Territory legislation for the material to be sold and distributed in Australia. The Commonwealth proposes mirroring amendments to the Customs Regulations that will prevent import or export.
Criminal laws allow the prosecution of a person who commits a range of offences and crimes (including those preparatory to and/or in collusion with others) which could be part of terrorist activity. Sedition laws allow the prosecution of a person for advocating that force or violence be used against a Government. Terrorism laws allow the prosecution of a person for committing a terrorist act or training for or otherwise preparing or financing such activities. In each case the evidential burden is high and the relevant or appropriate person to be prosecuted may not be identifiable or within jurisdiction.
Criminal prosecution of terrorists does not, in and of itself, authorise police to remove terrorist material from sale in Australia. This proposal is one strategy aimed at restricting the trade in this material, regardless of whether the person who wrote, created or distributed it can be prosecuted.
5 AMENDING THE CODE AND GUIDELINES
The Board and Review Board are required to apply the Commonwealth Classification Act, the National Classification Code and the relevant Guidelines when making classification decisions. The proposal includes amendments to both the Code and guidelines but would not change the other matters to which the Boards must have regard in classifying material.
The Board and Review Board would continue to take into account the broad matters set out in s 11 of the Act such as certain standards of reasonable adults, the literary, artistic or educational merit of the material, its general character and the class of persons to whom it is intended to be published. The Act also requires material to be classified in accordance with the Code and guidelines (s 9).
The Code sets out some broad principles to which classification decisions should give effect (as far as possible), including that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they like, that everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material they find offensive, and the need to take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence (cl 1).
The Code also contains specific tables describing in greater detail the content of publications, films, and computer games that would require them to be given a particular classification (cls 2-4).
The proposal is to add another subsection for material that ‘advocates terrorist acts’ to the RC item in the Classification column for each type of material – publications films and computer games.
An alternative suggestion is to amend the existing criteria in the Code of ‘promote, incite or instruct’ so that it expressly encompasses material that advocates terrorist acts. This could be done by redrafting the criteria in each of the RC items in the Code to read:
‘promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence, including advocating terrorist acts’.
The guidelines state that material that has elements which exceed the limits of the classification categories must be refused classification. There is little further explanation of the terms related to crime and violence. In fact, in the film guidelines the word ‘incite’ is not used at all, and although ‘instruct’ is qualified by ‘detailed’ the word ‘promotion’ is repeated but not explained. Other than repeating the terms of the Code, the publications guidelines simply refer to ‘detailed instruction’ in crime or violence with no mention of ‘incite’ or ‘promote’.
It is proposed that there would be definitions of the essential terms ‘terrorist act’ and ‘advocate’ (see below).
6 ELEMENTS ‘TERRORIST ACT’ AND ‘ADVOCATE’
Explaining the terms
‘Terrorist act’ and ‘advocate’ would be explained based on definitions used in the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The terms would be explained as follows:
'advocate’ means action that directly or indirectly counsels or urges doing a terrorist act; or directly or indirectly provides instruction on doing a terrorist act; or directly praises doing a terrorist act where there is a risk that such praise might lead a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment) to engage in a terrorist act.
‘terrorist act’ means an action or threat of action that causes serious physical harm or death to a person, or endangers a person's life or involves serious risk to public health or safety, serious damage to property or serious interference with essential electronic systems. Such an action or threat of action must also be intended to advance a political, ideological or religious cause and to coerce or influence by intimidation an Australian or foreign government or intimidate the public or a section of the public. However, it does not include advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action which is not intended to cause serious harm, death, endangerment of life, or serious risk to the health or safety of the public.
Where the terms should be explained
Should the explanation of the terms ‘advocate’ and ‘terrorist acts’ be placed in the Code or guidelines?
If placed in the Code as definitions, they would give the explanations the status of a legislative definition. Although this would provide more detail than the other criteria set out in the Code, it would ensure clarity about the meaning of the terms. However, the Code as currently structured lists criteria only. A full definition of the meaning of those criteria in the Code itself would be inconsistent in length and style with the other elements.
Section 9 of the Commonwealth Classification Act requires classifiers to consider the Code and guidelines when classifying. Section 12(1) refers to the guidelines as assisting the Board in applying the criteria in the Code. The attached suggestion for amended Code and guidelines places definitions of the terms ‘advocate’ and ‘terrorist acts’ in the List of Terms in the guidelines. The Act would require the Board and Review Board to use the definitions in the guidelines in applying the Code.
Ensuring such material is adequately captured and balancing freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is a valued part of Australian society. A lot of material may be controversial but that alone would not attract the operation of the provisions. It is not intended to capture material that does not ‘advocate terrorist acts’ within their meaning in the Code and/or Guidelines.
The key for material to be captured by the new provisions would be that it must actually advocate someone commit a terrorist act within the concept of the expansive definition of ‘advocates’. All aspects of the elements ‘advocates’ and ‘terrorist acts’ must be present for material to be refused classification. Material would have to be specifically about advocating committing a terrorist act, not merely expressing generalised support for a cause. The Board and Review Board would need to decide that the act clearly fell within the definition of a ‘terrorist act’ and that the material clearly ‘advocates’ doing that act within the meaning of ‘advocate’ as explained in the Code or guidelines.
Examples of material not intended to be captured by the provisions include investigative journalists’ work, satirical pieces, or patriotic material that might appear to glorify war or battle. It is not intended that the proposal restrict film-makers or authors or publishers dealing with contentious subject matter in an entertaining, informative, educational, ironical or controversial way. This may include dealing with strong themes, having a shocking impact and presenting a story from alternative perspectives. The Board and Review Board are used to dealing with such material and giving appropriate classifications.
‘Terrorist act’ would not include action legitimately taken by the armed forces of a country on the international stage in accordance with what they perceive to be their national interests and international law. However, where material could be seen to advocate terrorist acts as defined, outside the framework of the internationally recognised concept of ‘war’, it should not be available in Australia.
Some concern has been expressed about the implications of using terminology from the Criminal Code in a civil context and whether this could mean that a wider range of material is captured and a greater restriction on freedom of expression than is desirable is a likely result. One advantage of using this terminology is that the language has previously been agreed by the Commonwealth, States and Territories. While it is currently used in the criminal context, the Board and Review Board do not operate within the criminal jurisdiction, but rather apply a civil standard of what represents community values. The drafting would make no direct reference to the Criminal Code but would explain the expression.
7 SCOPE OF PROPOSAL
The amendments to the Code and guidelines would apply to publications, films and computer games submitted for classification in the same way as the Act, Code and guidelines already apply to them. It would apply by application of the Broadcasting Services Act 1999 to internet pages hosted in Australia and through amendments to the Customs Regulations to imports and exports.
The normal requirements and processes for classification would apply including for applications by distributors, publishers or authorities or agencies for law enforcement purposes. The proposal imposes no additional requirements for law enforcement or policing.
8 DISTINGUISHING SO-CALLED ‘HATE’ MATERIAL FROM MATERIAL THAT ADVOCATES TERRORIST ACTS
In Australia, material that could be considered by some to be offensive, insulting, controversial, or just unpleasant is readily available. Free speech is an important tenet of our Western liberal democracy and is enshrined in the Code. This proposal is not designed to remove from circulation material that falls short of actually advocating people commit terrorist acts. Under the proposal, the Classification Board and Review Board will only be required to refuse classification to material that advocates terrorist acts as defined.
The media has given a lot of attention to so-called ‘hate’ material. This material might insult or make claims about identified groups of people on the basis of their race, religion or ethnicity. It might rail against people other than themselves and their practices and customs. Its content can vary from unpleasant to quite abhorrent. However, only ‘hate’ material that could also be considered to advocate that people commit terrorist acts would be captured by this proposal.
Some ‘hate’ material – such as that which racially vilifies someone, may be captured by other regulation. For example, Commonwealth, State and Territory anti-discrimination and/or anti-vilification laws prohibit racial vilification, which could include the distribution of material promoting racial hatred.
The Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) prohibits offensive behaviour based on racial hatred (racial vilification), that is, public acts that are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or groups of people, and that are done because of a person’s or group’s race, colour or national or ethnic origin. In the landmark cases of Jones v Scully and Toben v Jones, vilification of Jewish people in leaflets and on the internet was found to be unlawful under the RDA and not to be a legitimate exercise of free speech.
Commonwealth racial vilification laws are complaints based. Complaints may be made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which will attempt to conciliate. If the conciliation is unsuccessful the complainant may commence legal proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Court. A person may also have a ground of complaint under State or Territory racial vilification legislation and may complain to the anti-discrimination body in that State or Territory. Some State and Territory laws include offences of serious vilification on prohibited grounds of discrimination
Racial vilification on the internet is also dealt with under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Act 2004 extended the offence of using a telecommunications service in an offensive manner to cover material on the internet.
9 CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
It is important to be consistent in the ability to stop material at the border as well as get it out of distribution when within the country. The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 would be amended to identify material that advocates terrorist acts as prohibited imports and exports
The prohibitions in the Customs Regulations do not automatically pick up by reference material that is refused classification under the classification scheme. Rather, they prohibit the importation or exportation of publications (and other goods including films and computer games) in terms that replicate the grounds on which the Boards must refuse classification. These include goods that ‘promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence’.
The same lack of certainty in the coverage of these provisions is relevant to goods at the border. Therefore, the Australian Government will need to amend the regulations so that they identify material that advocates terrorist acts as prohibited imports and exports. Amendments would use the same terms and definitions as the classification scheme.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION CODE
National Classification Code
1. Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:
(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; (b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; (c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; (d) the need to take account of community concerns about: (i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and (ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.
Publications 2. Publications are to be classified in accordance with the following table:
Item 1: RC
Description of publication
Publications that: (a) describe, depict, express or otherwise deal with matters
of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or
abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of
morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the
extent that they should not be classified; or (b) describe or depict in a way
that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or
appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual
activity or not); or (c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or
violence; or (d) advocate terrorist acts RC
Item 2: Category 2 restricted
Description of publication
Publications (except RC publications) that:
(a) explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; or (b) depict, describe or express revolting or abhorrent phenomena in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult and are unsuitable for a minor to see or read Category 2 restricted
Item 3: Category 1 restricted
Description of publication
Publications (except RC publications and Category 2 restricted publications)
that: (a) explicitly depict nudity, or describe or impliedly depict sexual or
sexually related activity between consenting adults, in a way that is likely to
cause offence to a reasonable adult; or (b) describe or express in detail
violence or sexual activity between consenting adults in a way that is likely to
cause offence to a reasonable adult; or (c) are unsuitable for a minor to see or
read Category 1 restricted
Item 4: All other publications - Unrestricted
Films
3. Films are to be classified in accordance with the following table:
Item 1 - RC
Description of film Classification 1 Films that: (a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or (b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be , a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or (c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence; or (d) advocate terrorist acts RC
Item 2: X18+ Films (except RC films) that: (a) contain real depictions of actual sexual activity between consenting adults in which there is no violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence, coercion, sexually assaultive language, or fetishes or depictions which purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers, in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; and (b) are unsuitable for a minor to see X 18+
Item 3: R18+
Films (except RC films and X 18+ films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see R
18+
Item 4: MA15+
Films (except RC films, X 18+ films and R 18+ films) that depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or coarse language in such a manner as to be unsuitable for viewing by persons under 15 MA 15+
Item 5: M
Films (except RC films, X 18+ films, R 18+ films and MA 15+ films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15 M
Item 6: PG
Films (except RC films, X 18+ films, R 18+ films, MA 15+ films and M films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15 without the guidance of their parents or guardians
Item 7: G -All other films
Computer Games 4. Computer games are to be classified in accordance with the following table:
Item 1: RC
Computer games that: (a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or (b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or (c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence; or (d) advocate terrorist acts; or (e) are unsuitable for a minor to see or play.
Item 2: MA15+
Computer games (except RC computer games) that depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or coarse language in such a manner as to be unsuitable for viewing or playing by persons under 15
Item 3: M
Computer games (except RC and MA 15+ computer games) that cannot be recommended for viewing or playing by persons who are under 15
Item 4 Computer games (except RC, MA 15+ and M computer games) that cannot be recommended for viewing or playing by persons who are under 15 without the guidance of their parents or guardians
Item 5 All other computer games
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FILM AND COMPUTER GAMES GUIDELINES - RC SECTION AND LIST OF TERMS
RC - REFUSED CLASSIFICATION
Note: Films that exceed the R 18+and X 18+ classification categories will be Refused Classification. Computer games that exceed the MA 15+ classification category will be Refused Classification.
Films and computer games will be refused classification if they include or contain any of the following:
CRIME OR VIOLENCE
Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence. The promotion
or provision of instruction in paedophile activity. Descriptions or depictions
of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or
depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.
Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of: (i) violence with a very
high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed;
(ii) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high
impact; (iii)sexual violence.
SEX
Depictions of practices such as bestiality. Gratuitous, exploitative or
offensive depictions of: (i) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or
practices which are offensive or abhorrent; (ii) incest fantasies or other
fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.
DRUG USE
Detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs. Material promoting or
encouraging proscribed drug use.
TERRORIST ACTS
Advocating terrorist acts.
Note: Some of the terms used in this category are defined in the List of Terms at the end of these Guidelines.
List of Terms
Note: Words which are used in the Guidelines but which are not contained in this
List of Terms take their usual dictionary meaning. Refer to the latest edition
of The Macquarie Dictionary.
Advocate Action that: (a) directly or indirectly counsels or urges doing a terrorist act; or (b) directly or indirectly provides instruction on doing a terrorist act; or (c) directly praises doing a terrorist act where there is a risk that such praise might lead a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment) to engage in a terrorist act.
Coercion: The use of threat or power to force agreement to sexual activity.
Demean: A depiction or description, directly or indirectly sexual in nature, which debases or appears to debase the person or the character depicted.
Elements: Themes, violence, sex, coarse language, drug use and nudity.
Exploitative: Appearing to purposefully debase or abuse for the enjoyment of others, and lacking moral, artistic or other values.
Fetish: An object, an action or a non-sexual part of the body which gives sexual gratification.
Intensity: Strength of the treatment or subject matter; strength of engagement or involvement.
Offensive: Material which causes outrage or extreme disgust.
Sexual Activity: Matters pertaining to sexual acts, but not limited to sexual intercourse.
Sexual Violence: Sexual assault or aggression, in which the victim does not consent.
Sexualised Violence: Where sex and violence are connected in the story, although sexual violence may not necessarily occur.
Terrorist act An action or threat of action that is intended to advance a political, ideological or religious cause and to coerce or influence by intimidation an Australian or foreign government or intimidate the public or a section of the public. Such an action or threat of action must also cause serious physical harm or death to a person, or endanger a person's life or involve serious risk to public health or safety, serious damage to property or serious interference with essential electronic systems. However, it does not include advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action which is not intended to cause serious harm, death, endangerment of life, or serious risk to the health or safety of the public
Themes: Social issues such as crime, suicide, drug and alcohol dependency, death, serious illness, family breakdown and racism.
Treatment: The way in which material is handled or presented.
Violence: Acts of violence; the threat or effects of violence.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PUBLICATIONS GUIDELINES - RC SECTION AND LIST OF TERMS
RC REFUSED CLASSIFICATION
Publications which contain elements which exceed those set out in the above classification categories are classified ‘RC’. Publications which fall within the criteria for ‘RC’ classification cannot be legally imported or sold in Australia.
The National Classification Code sets out the criteria for classifying a publication ‘RC’. These include publications that: • describe, depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or • describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not), or; • promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence; or advocate terrorist acts.
Publications that appear to purposefully debase or abuse for the enjoyment of readers/viewers, and which lack moral, artistic or other values to the extent that they offend against generally accepted standards of morality, decency and propriety will be classified ‘RC’.
Publications will be classified ‘RC’ :
(a) if they promote or provide instruction in paedophile activity; or if they contain: (b) descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 ; (c) detailed instruction in: (i) matters of crime or violence, (ii) the use of proscribed drugs; (d) realistic depictions of bestiality;
or if they contain gratuitous, exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions of: (e) violence with a very high degree of impact which are excessively frequent, emphasised or detailed; (f) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact; (g) sexual violence; (h) sexualised nudity involving minors; (i) sexual activity involving minors; or if they contain exploitative descriptions or depictions of:
(j) violence in a sexual context; (k) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are revolting or abhorrent; (l) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or revolting or abhorrent or if they advocate terrorist acts.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Abuse: Maltreat or assault, especially sexually.
Adult Themes: Adult themes may include references to and depictions associated with issues such as violence, sex, nudity, crime, suicide, drug and alcohol dependency, fetish, death, serious illness, and racism.
Advocate: Action that: (a) directly or indirectly counsels or urges doing a terrorist act; or (b) directly or indirectly provides instruction on doing a terrorist act; or (c) directly praises doing a terrorist act where there is a risk that such praise might lead a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment) to engage in a terrorist act.
Cultural context: In relation to bona fide works of art, includes works of literary note.
Coarse language: Mild coarse language might include “bloody” or “bugger” and infrequent use of words such as “shit”. Strong coarse language includes “fuck” language and derivatives.
Demean: A description or depiction, directly or indirectly sexual in nature, which debases or appears to debase the person or the character depicted.
Depiction: Representation through image. Realistic depictions include photographs and illustrations which are close to real life; stylised depictions include cartoons and other unrealistic illustrations and images. Description: Representation through text. Generally, descriptions of classifiable elements may contain more detail than depictions.
Detail: The amount of verbal or visual information in the representation of a subject.
Discreet: With little or no detail and generally not prominent.
Disturb/disturbing: Cause emotional trauma or anguish.
Drug use: The use of proscribed drugs. Proscribed drugs are those specified in Schedule 4 (referred to in Regulation 4A (1A) (e)) of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations.
Elements: Classifiable elements include violence, sex, adult themes, coarse language, drug use, nudity - the Classification Board assesses the impact of these when making classification decisions.
Emphasised: Given prominence or strong focus. Factors include placement (within the publication or on the page), size (of image, article or text), style (including colour, clarity, realism), pose (of model), length of verbal description, and frequency.
Excessive: Treatment which exceeds reasonable limits, especially in terms of detail, length of verbal description or frequency
Exploitative: Appearing to purposefully debase or abuse for the enjoyment of readers/viewers, and lacking moral, artistic or other values.
Fetish: An object, an action, or a non-sexual part of the body which gives sexual gratification. Mild fetishes include stylised domination and rubberwear. Stronger fetishes include bondage and discipline.
Genital Contact: Genital manipulation, including penetration, in actual sexual activity.
Gratuitous: Material which is unwarranted or uncalled for, and included without the justification of a defensible story-line or artistic merit.
Harm/harmful: Cause damage.
Historical context: In relation to a bona fide work of art, includes a documentary or biography.
Impact: The strength of the effect on the reader/viewer.
Implied: Depiction/s of a subject in which an act or thing is inferred or indicated without actually being seen.
Intensity: Strength of treatment or subject matter.
Material: The covers and content of publications.
Nudity: Nudity can consist of frontal or rear below waist visuals, full frontal or full rear visuals for both sexes, or breast nudity for females. The amount of detail is determined not only by the content of the nudity shown, but by other factors including closeness and size of visuals, realism, and clarity.
Offensive: Material which causes outrage or extreme disgust. The Guidelines distinguish between material which may offend some sections of the adult community, and material which offends against generally accepted standards, and is therefore likely to offend most people.
Plain opaque wrapping: Opaque material covering the cover of a publication with the exception of the title of the publication, unless the title itself (including depictions and text) is unsuitable for public display.
Publication: Has the same meaning as ‘publication’ in the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.
Real: Actual.
Realistic: (see Depiction)
Reasonable Adult: Possessing common sense and an open mind, and able to balance personal opinion with generally accepted community standards.
Reference: References may be visual or verbal. References refer or relate to classifiable elements such as violence, sex, nudity and drug use.
Revolting and abhorrent phenomena: Fetishes or practices, sometimes accompanied by sexual activity, which are considered offensive.
Sexual Activity: Matters pertaining to sexual acts but not limited only to portrayals of sexual intercourse.
Sexual Context: A sexual context may be established by the nature of the publication itself, by the frequency of depictions or descriptions of or implying sexual activity, by the placement (including juxtaposition) of images and text, or by the relationship between image and text (for example a caption accompanying a realistic depiction).
Sexual Excitement: Includes the male erection.
Sexual Violence: The act of sexual assault or aggression, in which the victim does not consent.
Sexualised Nudity: Includes poses, props, text and backgrounds that are sexually suggestive.
Simulation: Simulated sexual activity is not real, but looks realistic. Submittable Publication: Has the same meaning as ‘publication’ in the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.
Stylised: (see Depiction)
Terrorist act An action or threat of action that is intended to advance a political, ideological or religious cause and to coerce or influence by intimidation an Australian or foreign government or intimidate the public or a section of the public. Such an action or threat of action must also cause serious physical harm or death to a person, or endanger a person's life or involve serious risk to public health or safety, serious damage to property or serious interference with essential electronic systems. However, it does not include advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action which is not intended to cause serious harm, death, endangerment of life, or serious risk to the health or safety of the public
Tone: The quality or feeling of material, such as its sadness, humour, menace, lightness, or seriousness.
Touching of Genitals: Displaying of genitals, or implying sexual activity.
Treatment: The way in which written or pictorial material is handled, with regard to such factors as detail, emphasis and tone.
Unsuitable: Material that is not appropriate to readers/viewers under 18 years because of its ability to harm or disturb.
Violence: Includes not only acts of violence, but also the obvious threat of violence or its result. Violence in a Sexual Context:
Violence in a sexual context, as distinct from sexual violence, refers to a relationship between the elements of violence and sex/sexualised nudity. The relationship may be established by the placement, juxtaposition, style or content of images and text, and/or by a story-line.
***
Here the ALP's Queensland Senator Joe Ludwig, and the Liberals WA Senator David Johnston question the Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty about the so called terror DVDs.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AFFAIRS: Discussion
Date 23 May, 2007
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Department ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO
Page 4
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm.
Source Senate
Proceedings suspended from 12.33 pm to 1.36 pm
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—There is another broader matter that has been in the media, to
do with Sheik Feiz’s terror DVD that was given a PG rating. The specific
offence, or one of the offences that could be attracted by this, is in section
80.2(5) of the Criminal Code, to do with when a person:
… urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished) …
I was wondering if the matter of the DVD was investigated by the Australian Federal Police. Is there an ongoing investigation or has an investigation been concluded? If so, what specific charges or offences were looked at in respect of that?
Talk
Senator Johnston—What is the name of the sheik?
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Sheik Feiz. I do not like to use the colloquial phrase, but it
was the terror DVDs that were in the media; I think they were referred to as ‘martyr
films’ in some newspaper reports—in the Sydney Morning Herald, I believe.
Talk
Mr Keelty—I can advise that you the matter was referred to the Commonwealth
DPP, who subsequently advised us that no offence was made out to support a
charge of sedition under the relevant legislation and that the matter has been
now referred to the Office of Film and Literature Classification.
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Are you able to say what the view of the Commonwealth Director
of Public Prosecutions was as to why it did not meet the elements of the
offence? The reports say that it calls for Muslims to murder non-Islamic people.
I am just wondering why that would not fall under the banner of urging violence
within the community.
Talk
Mr Keelty—I do not have a copy of the Commonwealth DPP’s advice with me, but
in the advice I have received it states that the DVDs made by the individual
were examined in the context of the old sedition laws because of when the acts
were allegedly committed. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
formed the view that there was insufficient evidence to support an offence under
the old legislation.
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—So that was not tested against the new section?
Talk
Mr Keelty—No. I do not have the DPP’s advice in front of me, but I presume
it was because of the date of the creation of the DVD.
******
During the May 2007 Senate Estimates, the ALP's Senator Joe Ludwig questioned the new Director of the OFLC about the recent controversy over the Muslim terror books and DVDs.
The speakers are:
ALP
QLD Senator Joe Ludwig
Liberal Party
WA Senator David Johnston
Office of Film and Literature Classification
Mr Donald McDonald, Director
Mr Jeremy Fenton, Senior Classifier
Attorney-General’s Department Management and Accountability
Mr Ian Govey, Deputy Secretary, Civil Justice and Legal Services
Support services for government operations Output group 4
Mr Alex Anderson, Assistant Secretary, Legal Policy
STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AFFAIRS: Office of Film and Literature Classification: Discussion
Date 24 May, 2007
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Page 86
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm.
Source Senate
Talk
Mr Govey—There was already some work being done on policy within the Office of
Legal Services Coordination. I think it is worth making the general point that
it is very hard to add up all the little bits that were working on this and then
come up with where we are now. Effectively, we sat down again and looked at what
structure we were going to need, taking into account the available resources.
The branch has been set up in light of current needs, which are not necessarily
the same as when you had policy being done from an office in Sydney and an
office in Canberra.
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Yes, Mr Govey. Sometimes it is very hard from this side of the
table. If you are telling me that it is hard from your side, I will certainly
accept that. Mr McDonald, I know that you are new but this was a process of
policy development which might be called, if I use the general term, the hate
books—that is, books promoting suicide bombing and atrocities against the
West. As I understand the situation, we have a fourfold system dealing with this
type of material. I am happy to be assisted here. First, there are criminal
offences under section 102.1A of the Criminal Code, which proscribes
counselling, praising of or instruction in a terrorist act. Second, there are
sedition offences under section 80.2 of the Criminal Code. Third, there is the
censorship regime. You have a role—this is already within the capacity of the
Classification Review Board to take into account—to refuse classification on
the basis of depictions that condone or incite violence. The fourth area
involves Customs, if there is an importation. There are regulations that then
deal with the importation of refused classification material or the like. Have I
missed any? They are the four main ways in which we generally deal with this
type of material.
Talk
Ms Davies—Yes, those are the four main ones, although I note that the sedition
offences et cetera that you are talking about are not directed at the material
itself.
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—That is right. Under the categories and symbols page on your
website there is the classification ‘PG’ for films and computer games that
contain material that need to be explained to children and, therefore, parental
guidance is recommended. The PG content is mild. I refer to the specific example
of the Sheik Feiz terror DVD, which was given a PG rating. As I understood it,
that matter was raised in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 April 2005. The
question that I have is: how is a film that calls for Muslims to murder
non-Islamic people considered mild by the board?
Talk
Mr McDonald—The board considered that material on a referral that was
submitted by the Australian Federal Police. It was a clear majority decision to
classify the material on that basis.
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—I do not understand one issue. Perhaps you can help me with
this. How can a film that calls for suicide attacks or so-called martyrdom be
considered mild by the board? How on earth can the board come to the conclusion
that a DVD that displays racial hatred by calling Jewish people an army of pigs
is mild? I would like to know specifically why the board—which, as I
understand the brief, is to be reflective of Australian community standards—considered
this material appropriate for young Australian Muslim children aged, say, 10
years, to view.
Talk
Mr McDonald—I am just referring to the actual report. As you clearly
understand, this decision was reached before I was appointed to the board, which
is not meant to be misunderstood as any repudiation of the decision; it is just
that I was not there and familiar with it. It was the board’s view that the
classifiable element of the themes—which are the religious themes—was mild
in its viewing impact. I am now reading from the report, which states:
The film contains religious themes that have a low sense of threat and/or menace and that are justified by context. The context is a lecture about tenets of the Islamic faith, ostensibly from a fundamentalist perspective.
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Was the content of the DVD produced in Australia or overseas?
Talk
Mr McDonald—Yes, it was produced in Australia. It is astonishingly undramatic,
Senator. A camera is simply trained on somebody who is standing there, speaking.
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—Are you able to provide to the committee the statement of
reasons by the board?
Talk
Mr McDonald—I believe I have provided them in full. The report refers to
various points—at minute 14 et cetera—
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—I understand the report.
Talk
Mr McDonald—The concluding remark is:
In the Board’s view, the use of the consumer advice “Religious themes” most accurately reflects the content of the classifiable element in the film.
In a minority view of the board, it was stated:
The classifiable elements contained in the film do not exceed “very mild” in impact. The themes are delivered in the manner of a modern-day sermon, and contain references and imagery generally tolerated within the wider Australian religious community.
That was the minority view, but I believe it was a minority of three.
Talk
Senator LUDWIG—It just does not seem sensible to me. How can it be justifiable
when it has material or content that allows someone to murder non-believers? If
you could provide that report, it would be helpful. I understand, and I am sure
Mr Cornall can confirm this, that in the past those reports