Concerns about terrorism White Paper
Amnesty International is concerned about the potential human rights implications of certain proposals put forward in the counter-terrorism White Paper released yesterday by the Federal Government.
While we absolutely acknowledge the responsibility of all governments to protect their citizens, and condemns terrorist activity in the strongest possible terms, we also believe that care must always be taken to safeguard the human rights of people potentially affected by counter-terrorism measures.
Of particular concern is the proposal in the White Paper to subject people from 10 as yet un-named countries to extra security measures, via a new biometric-based visa system.
“Any counter-terrorism strategy that targets a particular group of people based on nationality, ethnicity or any other similar grounds is profiling by another name,” said Katie Wood, Amnesty International Australia spokesperson.
“All governments have an obligation to protect their citizens, but this must be done in a way that respects and upholds human rights and the rule of law.”
The proposed new security measures will discriminate against people on the basis of nationality, not on whether or not an individual is guilty of criminal activity or other prohibited conduct.
“This would remove the presumption of innocence that is fundamental to Australia’s legal system and is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” said Katie Wood.
Amnesty International is also concerned about a proposal in the White Paper to prevent people from Australia who are “of security concern” from travelling internationally. This includes revoking or denying passports.
“This proposal lays open the prospect of people who have not been charged with any crime being denied the right to travel and, again, this removes the presumption of innocence,” said Katie Wood.
The Government’s White Paper itself states that, in an overseas context, “Protecting and assisting the … most marginalised populations can help address local sources of grievance, frustration and disenfranchisement that terrorists try to exploit.”
Amnesty International believes that some of the security measures proposed in the White Paper involve the kind of discrimination that marginalises certain groups and leads them to becoming radicalised.


Comments
Michael Wild | Posted on 25 February 2010, 12:08AM | Report comment
The presumption of innocence means you can’t be jailed without your guilt being confirmed in a proper court. Being searched or questioned before you board planes is not like being tortured or jailed for your beliefs. When we call brief searches a violation of “Human Rights” in the same class of the serious ones we are being silly and debasing our currency. Far from showing a wise grasp of the indivisibility of Human Rights we’re trivializing the plight of the real HR victims. Would Katie Wood prefer security waste time specially looking at a few old Chinese ladies to show they’re not profiling? Does she really prefer having no searches or each and every passenger given the same level of scrutiny even if this adds hours to every flight? If she ran airport security al-Qaida would only have to make sure it’s bombers didn’t have criminal records before they got on the plane. Frankly I’m getting tired of feeling embarrassed when I read AI’s press releases.
Bev McPhee | Posted on 24 February 2010, 08:22PM | Report comment
All we need to do is to have some respect.WE have become too arrogant and involve ourselves in the business of other countries when it isn’t wanted.
Would we like to be invaded with troops landing on our shores, guns blazing and disrupting our lives because someone thinks that we should do things differently?