Australia's New Law Would Strip Citizenship For Possessing A 'Thing' Connected With Terrorism, Or Whistleblowing
from the proportionate-response,-what's-that? dept
Things seem to be going from bad to worse in Australia. In April, it brought in mandatory data retention, and last week its own version of SOPA finally became law. Now the Australian government is working on another awful piece of legislation: a bill to revoke the citizenship of those holding dual nationality if they are "involved in terrorism." A column in The Sydney Morning Herald gives a few examples of what that dangerously elastic concept might mean in practice:
Citizenship would automatically be stripped from a person convicted of entering an area declared to be a no-go zone by the Australian government. This would occur even if the person has entered that area for innocent purposes, such as to do business, visit friends or undertake a religious pilgrimage. The same result would follow for a person convicted of damaging Commonwealth property or possessing a 'thing', such as a book or downloaded file from the Internet, that is in some way connected with terrorism.
Yes, download a file that is "in some way connected with terrorism," and your Australian citizenship will be taken away -- automatically. According to the article quoted above, this is because:
[the Australian government] has responded to concerns that its proposal might be struck down by the High Court. Instead of allowing a minister to strip a person of their citizenship, the bill states that this would occur automatically. This is consistent with the current law.
An article in The Guardian points out that the bill covers whistleblowers too:
The proposed law would also capture a range of offences for disclosing matters relating to national security under section 91.1 of the [Australian] Criminal Code.
The author of the article in The Sydney Morning Herald, George Williams, is a professor of law at the University of South Wales. As he says:
The section is titled "offence relating to espionage and similar activities", but includes several offences for intentionally disclosing matters pertaining to national security.The government has again overplayed its hand. Its proposal goes well beyond a modest, sensible extension to the existing law so as to remove citizenship from a person who has committed a terrorist act or fought for an organisation like IS. Instead, its bill could cause people to be exiled from the Australian community where their connection to terrorism is minor, or even non-existent.
The same disregard for proportionality can be seen in the data retention and copyright laws brought in recently. Sadly, it seems likely that the proposed citizenship-stripping bill will soon join them in Australia's Hall of Legislative Shame.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, citizenship, free speech, terrorism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How long till the Australians can vote the lunatics in the Government out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what is so funny is that they are all doing the same thing as far as copyright is concerned, as far as whistle blowing is concerned and as far as exposing the government is concerned. if this doesn't make people sit up and take notice of a global conspiracy against the ordinary people, in favour of a few global corporations and over-rich individuals, i dont know what is!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank God for Mississippi
Now, citizens of the US can say, "Thank God for Australia." No matter how much of a police state we become, we can always look to Australia and say, "There but for the grace of God..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank God for Mississippi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thank God for Mississippi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank God for Mississippi
What people should really freak out about is in our hemisphere the Dominican Republic is deporting all Haitians that don't have blood ties to the DR after 1920. That's black on lower IQ black discrimination. Despite being on the same Island land mass the DR has an average IQ 15points higher than Haiti.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thank God for Mississippi
Of course that isn't the case, the Australian government couldn't give a rat's arse about some downtrodden people in a far off land who went out of their way to help the invading forces for years, then have their families & themselves threatened with death all because they sided with the invaders.
However if they were white, English speaking Christians the red carpet would have been rolled out with non-stop flights direct to Australia all at the taxpayers expense until all the 'good' people had been saved from those 'bad' brown, foreign speaking Muslims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank God for Mississippi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Had minion read the Brisbane comments: no one has ever been prosecuted under the prior law.
Here at Techdirt, the more narrow and more anomalistic a news item, the more likely to be re-written (as Masnick wrote) with "its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Had minion read the Brisbane comments: no one has ever been prosecuted under the prior law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Had minion read the Brisbane comments: no one has ever been prosecuted under the prior law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Had minion read the Brisbane comments: no one has ever been prosecuted under the prior law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Had minion read the Brisbane comments: no one has ever been prosecuted under the prior law.
In fact the new legislation that the current Liberal party is going for is for NO judicial oversight, no Procedural fairness, and all based on what the Minister wants. Our constitution specifically forbids this sort of power being laced in the hands of any politician. We had a similar thing in 1957 when the then government tried to do same thing with communists. It then after the high court wiped the law went to a referendum, the referendum failed BIG TIME!
You like most of your comments have no fucking clue what you are talking about, and this is nothing to do with the labor party (who some in it are actually all for this change in legislation).
Next time before you comment out of the blue like, on something you have no clue on SHUT THE FUCK UP! Or you make yourself look more incompetent and moronic then we already know you are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barely concealed intentions
The section is titled "offence relating to espionage and similar activities", but includes several offences for intentionally disclosing matters pertaining to national security.
There is no 'would also', the whistleblowing section is pretty much the main reason for the law, with the 'terrorism' bits just tacked on as the smokescreen. This is an attempt to stop whistleblowers from exposing government actions, it has nothing to do with 'stopping terrorism'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Barely concealed intentions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Barely concealed intentions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barely concealed intentions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Barely concealed intentions
.... 9 1 1
Terrorists and Whistleblowers!
That is rich.
Gotta love these cabalists and their numerical magicks eh.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you do on an American passport is only subject to U.S. laws. As long as you do not travel anywhere (e.g Cuba) that is banned by the American government, you will be OK, since U.S. passports are ONLY subject to U.S. laws.
Since a sizeable chunk of Australia's population also has U.S. citizenship, someone could use a U.S. passport to travel to such places, as long as they not violating AMERICAN law, and be NOT SUBJECT to prosecution under Australian laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So the part about "even if the person has entered that area for innocent purposes, such as to do business, visit friends or undertake a religious pilgrimage" DOES NOT APPLY to those who use a United States passport.
It also would not apply to those did not LIVE in Australia. So a USA/Australia dual national living in the United States would ONLY be subject to AMERICAN laws, as long as they used the U.S. passports to travel to Syria, or any other "no go" country. As long as you did not break any U.S. laws, a USA/Australia dual national living in America would be not subject to this Australian law, as long as they do not break any U.S. laws.
And also the part about downloading certain files under this law also do not apply Australian citizens living outside of Australian. A USA/Australia dual national, living in the United States, is only subject to American laws, on what is downloaded from from the United States.
It is just like the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba. A USA/Australia dual national who lives in Australia and uses their Australian passport is not subject to the ban in Cuba travel as long as they use their Australian passports to enter and depart Cuba and they are living in Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anything you do wrong will also go to both countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Laws like America's Cuba travel ban, or the proposed Australian terrorism legislation only apply if you LIVE in a country. If you do not LIVE in Australia, then this new law does NOT APPLY to you. American citizens travelling in the United States on U.S. passports are ONLY subject to American laws, while on U.S. territory, even if they are Australian citizens, as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you check-in in Australia to fly to Cuba, that information is sent to the US under 5eyes information matching. The US has the info before you've got to the boarding lounge. If they don't want you to travel you can be stopped from boarding or flagged for questioning on arrival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I am talking about is flying to Argentina, and then flying to Havana, Cuba from there. Since the flight from Australia is to Argentina, you can avoid US travel restrictions on Cuba, since you are not using a US connecting city.
There is no way that the Americans will known your final destination is Cuba, since you are going to Argentina, first, and changing planes there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you go through immigration, if a passport check is done, then it registers that you hold more than one passport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know what treaties exist between Argentina and the US, it's possible they get told twice, it's possible your trip stops there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The IP address for Cubana's website traces back to a colocation center in Toronto. Since Cubana's servers are in Canada, they are not subject to any U.S. laws, including the travel restrictions on Cuba.
Cubana cannot be forced, by the U.S. government, to hand over its passenger lists, since their servers are on Canadian soil, making them only subject to Canadian laws or Australian ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can fly whatever airline you want - but only after you've passed through customs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travel bans for Australian citizens
The Australian governing party doesn't give a damn about which passport you use to travel where. Its only concern is if you have Australian citizenship and also have other citizenship. If, while you have Australian citizenship, you enter a banned location, and the government is informed of this, you will loose your Australian citizenship. As far as it is concerned, they are not making you stateless but are simply removing your privilege of having Australia citizenship.
Please not that they consider it a privilege to have Australian citizenship not a right.
I fully expect that even native born Australians (irrespective of whether you be blackfella or whitefella) will in future have their citizenship revoked under this or some other government.
At this point in time, there is no functional or meaningful difference between any of the major parties, Liberal/National, Labour or Greens. Supporters of any party can argue otherwise, but when all the facade is stripped away, all parties are ready to screw the citizens of this great nation. They may want to do it in different ways, but they mean to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travel bans for Australian citizens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Travel bans for Australian citizens
The Passport holder fly's, not the passport. If you have two passports they are both flagged when you travel.
Also, Why Cuba? This is about dual citizen Australians and muslim terror. Not communism.
It's not really about Aus/us citizens as it is about aus/ iraqui, afghani etc.
It's about immigrants who have come in as dependant children and leaving to train in Afghanistan not being allowed to return
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Travel bans for Australian citizens
You can bet your life it will not be used against terrorism but will instead be used against all types of people those in charge suddenly decide they don't like. be it because of how they think, act talk or live their lifestyle.
This is about controlling their population to the extent they lord over the serfs. The focus is enriching themselves at the expense of screwing over everyone else.
It is not like this has never happened before in recent history. We are bless to be living in such a literate age where we have the ability to document the past and learn from the mistakes that are made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Travel bans for Australian citizens
Australia already has a law that is similar but simpler and it's been enacted 0 times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Travel bans for Australian citizens
The proposed legislation requires No conviction, nor judicial oversight. It will INSTANTLY meet with a High Court Challenge and the law will be repealed. The Govt knows this, Ministers within the Govt have already leaked there horror about the proposals (Mostly ones who have been practicing solicitors).
As for the current law. YES it has been enacted a fair few times, just no convictions using it since the courts here do NOT kowtow to govt bullshit propaganda or wishes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Travel bans for Australian citizens
If you are kept out of the country permanently, that will be fine as far as they are concerned. They do not then have to provide any support to you as would be the case if you returned and were imprisoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact what you've just said in ALL THREE of your paragraphs is one of the most insanely idiotic and wrong things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought or even correct. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if the NSA was able to say, in response to all their scandals, 'Its okay. The moment they become persons of interest, they aren't americans, so the laws don't apply!'
Well.. stop imagining, and look over at Australia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Senator Brandis is the example of the Rule of Law - he makes the law and he is above the law. Laws only apply to the unimportant non-entities who are the citizens of Australia. Senator Brandis is not a citizen, he is a ruler of the citizens. It is his right to rule as Attorney-General and a member of Parliament and when he leaves Parliament, he will retain all rights and privileges that he had as a member of Parliament.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, one thing is certain.
How is this not covering weapon factories, by the way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, one thing is certain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, one thing is certain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, there goes my next Mad Max movie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, there goes my next Mad Max movie!
You install SoftEther on your machine and set both the SSL VPN and the LT2P VPN. You will also need a router. Just install the software, and set up your login credentials.
What you do is first login to the SSL VPN on your server, and then log into the LT2P VPN on top of that. But there is the trick, you use the internal adress on your network where your server is. This will totally defeat all censorship, and also defeat all cracking and sniffing of SSL. This works on Taco Bell's network, I have tested this, so it will work anywhere the net is filtered, even in your workplace, and there will be no possible way for the boss to detect or block what you are doing.
I have had a customer on my small VPN wanting to get past Taco Bell's draconian filtering and snifing, and I found it. I can login to my SSL VPN, then straight back out again on my LT2P VPN on my server, but I use the internal address of 192.168.1.2, instead of the external IP address for the server, and I get right through, totally defeating their filterig, and sniffing system. In any business, you gotta keep the customers happy.
If this works at Taco Bell, it will work anywhere, even in countries like China, Iran, or Australia that censor the Net. There is no POSSIBLE way to stop this without blocking all port 443 connections.
So anyone travelling to Australia who might run afoul of this new law can set up a VPN on their home broadband connection, before they leave, and there is no possible way your activity can be cracked, sniffed, detected, or blocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder will my fellow Canadians and our southern neighbours the Americans fight back when this happens to us or just pretend it won't affect us.
Dissent can be applied here as well. If you speak badly about anyone in the government this could be applied to you. Don't say won't happen. This law right here was never supposed to happen and yet it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With the ever increasing social injustice and the power new media gives to everyday man to voice their opinion, perhaps laws like the Canadian bill C-24 and this one are indicators of governments preparing to deal with dissidents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Truth Is Treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When Truth Is Treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When Truth Is Treason
And as long as you folks keep on believing that he is a loony and that he actually thinks that Islam crap is real, then his work is done and his pay is earned.
Never attribute to stupidity or incompetence, the things that are done by those who earn their position and income through deception and guile.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bimbos hate doing wrinkly old dudes...
Canada, Australia, Britain, USA, New Zealand.
What do they all have in common lately - new laws that eliminate both justice and democracy for the little guy and make billionaires richer.
Wutta Coincidence!
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you know, how to be a citizen of US?
To be a citizen of USA, You must know how to pass citizens tests exam, There is three part of exam.
I Found this knowledge from https://citizenstests.com/blogs and that is very helpful for me.
I know this is the of topic but for better knowledge everyone need to know this i think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]