Australian Police Chief Seeks Terror Reporting Ban 146
DJMajah writes "News.com.au reports that Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty has called for a media blackout on reporting of terrorism investigations and cases before trial in a speech to the Sydney Institute last night. Although he doesn't believe public institutions should be immune from public accountability, he goes on to say that public discussion should be delayed until information is made available by the courts or legal proceedings are complete. This all comes after last year's widely reported case of Dr. Mohammed Haneef who was detained then later deported from Australia on evidence described as weak — and seen by some, including Haneef, as a conspiracy."
1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Interesting)
It always starts small -- shut down the press for this reason, and then expand and control.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I simply cannot believe that people would make such recommendations, and not understand the import of their intent.
It's one thing for a tin-pot dictator in the middle of nowhere to do so, and it is quite another for someone in a position of authority in a western-styled democracy to make such statements. Then again, could be that the position of authority is what's making him make such statements.
I am just... baffled.
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Interesting)
So how did this start? A doctor that had the misfortune to be related to a terrorist suspect received a bit of heavy handed treatment that previously would have been beyond Australian law and various bits of "spin" were realeased to try to justify this. Vast numbers of people normally not connected with law enforcement were involved since this was the first real test of Australia's anti-terrorist organisations. When they found nothing it all came down to pretending it was real to try to save face and justify expense. The media was initially bluffed but when it finally came time for him to be charged the courts were not. At that point the Australian media were upset that they were manipulated with very poorly constructed lies and turned on the AFP taking delight in each new revelation of utter incompentance.
Re:1984 (Score:2, Interesting)
-Red
Re:It's just not fair! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll admit I'm ignorant of how it works in Australia, but here rights encroachment generally happens in one of two ways:
The politicians keep discussing it over the years and eventually it push it through, usually on the back of some shocking-to-the-public-conscience event. Like weapons regulations get tightened every time some little girl dies at the hands of some asshole who used a gun. See we can't hang him because we have to respect his civil rights so instead we limit the civil right to bear arms for everyone else while our system goes out of its way to put on a show of respecting the civil rights of the animal actually guilty of the crime.
The other way is that a politician or civil leader(often law enforcement officers) will make an outrageous demand, moving the bar of outrage causing comments substantially, then the actual steps taken, though they were unthinkable just a few years before, don't seem so bad.
Anyway, I hope that's not how your system works down there.
Re:Not That Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO the AFP should not expect that when they themselves leak details of the investigation to the media.
Re:The AFP are just getting pissy. (Score:3, Interesting)
The country with 16 amendments, oldest republic, has the judiciary and the executive hell bent on supressing the hard won Habeus Corpus and Innocent-until-proven-guilty concepts?
While a continent which is still under the rule of a queen, does not have constitutionally guaranteed rights against seizure, privacy, etc., the judiciary is hell bent on making sure the congress[parliment] and the Executive do NOT trample upon individual rights and privacy?
I have always found it a paradox.
A country with so many laws on privacy, freedom, etc., holds its own citizens in jail without a trial, while,
A country with no laws or even a constitution guaranteeing such rights provides so much freedom of thought and action...
Perspective. (Score:5, Interesting)
Mick's problem is not that he prostitutes his position to curry political favour, it's the fact that everyone knows it.
As for Labour sticking with Mick, not a chance! Remeber in 2000 the AFP raided the home of a Labour MP's adviser in what amounted to a fishing expedition on opposition foreign policy of the time. Labour will relish doing Mick slowly and publicly with the promised full blown inquiry. As for Labour being any better, well soak in the irony of Rudd suggesting Mick's opinion on censorship should be censored [smh.com.au].
Re:Perspective. (Score:3, Interesting)
The link you provided does not have anyone calling for keelty to be gagged, simply the government stating that the opinions expressed by him are not theirs and they strongly disagree with them.