I learn from Australia’s ABC public news network that the nation’s new Federal Police boss, Commissioner Krissy Barrett, reckons tougher laws on hate crime might be needed. The suggestion is that the police need extra powers to be able to nip hate crime and terrorism in the bud, before it even manifests. Frankly, this kind of talk makes my blood run cold.
Already this year Australia enacted – with the support of both major political parties – mandatory minimum sentences of six years for terrorism offences, three years for financing terrorism and one year for displaying Nazi symbols. The requirement for intent to be established was removed, allowing prosecutors to charge people for acting “recklessly”.
Blind Freddy ought to be able to see that this was a very bad idea. The Australian Law Reform Commission quickly pointed out that mandatory sentencing is costly, ineffective and disproportionately affects marginalised groups. That’s polite code for “it’s a really stupid idea” and “this is open to abuse by police and governments”. And let’s face it: if it can be abused it probably will be abused.
The big problem for Australians is that its governments seem to move in lockstep with those at “head office” in the USA and the UK. And both those places are rapidly throwing out the baby of freedom with the bathwater of dissent, in the process becoming the kinds of authoritarian regimes that they always claimed to despise. Suddenly peaceful protesters making legitimate points about all manner of issues ranging from genocide to environmental destruction are either “terrorists” or – at best – aiding and abetting terrorists. This appears to mean they can be beaten with impunity by police, arrested and detained without charge and possibly imprisoned or fined crippling sums of money.
Australia needs to resist this trend if it wants to be the nation of the “fair go” that it claims to honour. It is disturbing and distressing to hear the thoughts and policies of Donald Trump recycled for Australian usage. It was Trump who recently declared that anybody with left-wing views was an enemy of the state and that his new police machinery would be directed at rooting them out, silencing them and punishing them.
How easy it is to accuse somebody of “recklessly” supporting “terrorism” when all they have done is draw attention to the lies and hypocrisy of those setting national and global agendas. This is why I feel a chill when the new AFP boss talks about disrupting and preventing “radicalisation” before it occurs. Oppressive governments have long used such ideas to underpin the functioning of secret police apparatus, stamping out freedom of thought, expression and communication in order to maintain social control.
In recent years the spectre of “terrorism” has been the chief bogeyman used to justify draconian new laws and regulations. Now add a closetful of new bogeys in the guise of “greenies”, “anti-fascists” and agitators of various kinds, any or all whom can be labelled as “useful idiots” being played by sinister foreign forces with hostile hidden intentions. And we don’t even need to prove intent!!!!!
A useful bogey
The most useful bogey at present is “antisemitism”. In theory, as understood in times past, this meant a pathological dislike of Jews. Nowadays, however, the concept has morphed dramatically. Now it is allegedly antisemitic to oppose any actions undertaken by or on behalf of the state of Israel. No matter that Israel may be governed by a clique regarded by many Israelis as immoral, unethical and criminal. It is allegedly antisemitic to criticise that clique – even when it is enacting one of the most barefaced and brutal genocides in recent history. Even when it is savagely suppressing dissent within Israel. Even when it is blatantly striving to rig Israel’s civil structures for its own narrow and dangerous purposes. Even with all this in plain sight we are accused of antisemitism for daring to criticise this clique of savage extremist thugs. The accusation is rubbish, being promoted by people and organisations with ulterior motives who do not really care a damn about the welfare of Jews or anybody else.
I pity Jewish people, in Israel and elsewhere, who are struggling to deal with this situation. Because the people yelling the loudest about antisemitism and trying to use it to stamp out freedom of speech and expression are the biggest hypocrites around. The escalating atrocious behaviour of the extremists these hypocrites serve creates more anti-Israel sentiment. When this sentiment leads critics to harsh words or actions then the self-serving cycle is fed: the “antisemites” are getting out of hand and need to be suppressed with harsher laws. The corporate fascist propagandists in the right-wing media applaud, prompting servile politicians and empire building security czars to run merrily along the path of least resistance.
On the other hand, it is painful to see some people who describe themselves as progressive suggesting that somehow, Israel may have a special facility for atrocious behaviour. Its actions in the occupied territories are and have long been utterly disgraceful, but it is not a lone practitioner of calculated wickedness. Human history is heavily punctuated by episodes of genocide and it is clear that any group of people, when carefully misled, propagandised and misdirected, can be induced to support the most extraordinary atrocities. It is reasonable and important to oppose these evils but equally important to realise that they are characteristic of humans in general and of no race or grouping in particular.
Australia has plenty of laws to deal with racism, discrimination, assault and anything else that matters in this context. We do not need to stamp any harder on such civil liberties as remain. We should not run blindly down the same stupid path as the Americans and the British who seem hell-bent on becoming exactly the types of totalitarian societies they have always claimed to oppose. Australia has already foolishly followed them far enough. We should not follow them any further.
