Comments on: Faris v. Barns: Terrorism is not a thought crime http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/18/faris-v-barns-terrorism-is-not-a-thought-crime/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:22:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ben Aveling http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/18/faris-v-barns-terrorism-is-not-a-thought-crime/#comment-8780 Ben Aveling Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8780 "In ordinary criminal matters, the public accepts (with regret) that crime will always occur. But they do expect the police to track down the perpetrators. Terrorism is different. Here the public does not want the crime to ever occur. They see the role of the police as preventing terrorist crime rather than solving it after it has occurred."<br /><br />Yes but no. This is not a black/white issue where some crimes are prevented while other crimes are punished. Good policing is a mix of both factors, and others.<br /><br />The worse the likely impact of a crime, the more the balance of enforcement must shift towards prevention, but this law moves the balance too far.<br /><br />"speaking ... is a type of act. ... It is not a crime to think something [but] Raad and the other convicted men did much more than think. They acted."<br /><br />Speaking is an act, so is thinking. Neither can be made illegal without restricting the other. “In ordinary criminal matters, the public accepts (with regret) that crime will always occur. But they do expect the police to track down the perpetrators. Terrorism is different. Here the public does not want the crime to ever occur. They see the role of the police as preventing terrorist crime rather than solving it after it has occurred.”

Yes but no. This is not a black/white issue where some crimes are prevented while other crimes are punished. Good policing is a mix of both factors, and others.

The worse the likely impact of a crime, the more the balance of enforcement must shift towards prevention, but this law moves the balance too far.

“speaking … is a type of act. … It is not a crime to think something [but] Raad and the other convicted men did much more than think. They acted.”

Speaking is an act, so is thinking. Neither can be made illegal without restricting the other.

]]> By: John Boyd http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/18/faris-v-barns-terrorism-is-not-a-thought-crime/#comment-8781 John Boyd Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8781 The last sentence of Mr Faris' article should conclude with '..., unless they actually do something in pursuit of their conspiracy.' The last sentence of Mr Faris’ article should conclude with ‘…, unless they actually do something in pursuit of their conspiracy.’

]]> By: mike smith http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/18/faris-v-barns-terrorism-is-not-a-thought-crime/#comment-8782 mike smith Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8782 No doubt there's a legal difference between appearing for the defence, and appearing for one of the accused (who would, surely, be a defendant). I can't really see it though.<br /><br />I wouldn't say the laws in question were overwhelmingly supported by the voting public, either. Say, rather, that the public didn't care enough about them to vote on them as a major issue. Governments witter on about mandates, we don't need to give them encouragement in this. No doubt there’s a legal difference between appearing for the defence, and appearing for one of the accused (who would, surely, be a defendant). I can’t really see it though.

I wouldn’t say the laws in question were overwhelmingly supported by the voting public, either. Say, rather, that the public didn’t care enough about them to vote on them as a major issue. Governments witter on about mandates, we don’t need to give them encouragement in this.

]]> By: Mmm http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/18/faris-v-barns-terrorism-is-not-a-thought-crime/#comment-8783 Mmm Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8783 And the new situation? ... terrorism invented on 9/11/01? Or perhaps on the road to Baghdad in 1990? Or was it 9/11/73 in Santiago? Or King David Hotel mid 20C? Or Kamikaze pilots in WW2? Or Guy Fawkes centuries back or ... for heaven's sake. <br /><br />For mine we already had the laws to cover conspiracy etc, so really for me it's a case of good intelligence gathering and politics and education not new laws - that's strikes me as a cop out. And the new situation? … terrorism invented on 9/11/01? Or perhaps on the road to Baghdad in 1990? Or was it 9/11/73 in Santiago? Or King David Hotel mid 20C? Or Kamikaze pilots in WW2? Or Guy Fawkes centuries back or … for heaven’s sake.

For mine we already had the laws to cover conspiracy etc, so really for me it’s a case of good intelligence gathering and politics and education not new laws - that’s strikes me as a cop out.

]]> By: Michael http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/18/faris-v-barns-terrorism-is-not-a-thought-crime/#comment-8784 Michael Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8784 Can't we bring in a law about pompous barrister like Farris ? Can’t we bring in a law about pompous barrister like Farris ?

]]>