A local assault on Aussies' right of silence

In addition to freedom of expression, there are some other freedoms that we tend to think of as pretty fundamental. One of them is the right of silence. The Miranda warning given to American suspects upon arrest begins, "You have the right to remain silent." Our Supreme Court required that of all law enforcement agencies, so that they could not subvert the right. It's the famous Fifth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights: "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Well, as I may have mentioned before, Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.

There's an interesting little bill, actually an amendment, that was passed in March by the New South Wales Parliament. It's called the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence). It says, in brief, "You still have the right to remain silent. But then we have the right to infer negative things about you because of your silence." Negative things such as, "You're guilty."

Support for the bill was not unanimous. Greens member David Shoebridge made this speech prior to passage. He points out how the right of silence is one of the keystones of all common law. Didn't matter, it passed anyway.

What was driving this incredible erosion of fundamental freedom in an Australian state? Evidently, it is the increasing power and violence of "bikie gangs" and a perceived "wall of silence" that causes difficulty in bringing them to justice.

Some of the provisions are a bit surreal. As finally passed, the possibility of negative inferences only pertains if silence is maintained in the presence of one's lawyer. Which, one commenter said, evokes the following image:

DETAINEE (on phone to lawyer): "I've been arrested. I didn't do it, but there are some strange circumstances. Come down here and help me!"

LAWYER: "You don't want me there. If I come and you remain silent, they can infer that you are guilty. Stay silent and I'll stay away. You and I will get together some other time."

One can imagine the problems that will arise within the legal system here. In fact, two professors have imagined them and don't like what they imagine.

But what's more striking, to this visiting Yank, is that it's happened at the same time as well publicized assaults on freedom in the US: the Justice Department obtaining huge, unwarranted volumes of phone records from the Associated Press; the Internal Revenue Service suppressing organizations' tax exemptions based on their conservative political views. 

Just goes to show: eternal vigilance is truly the price of freedom.

Some good thinking on the US-China-Australia relationship

In today's The Australian, two prominent Australians have given their thoughts on how to fit in with Australia's two most important partners.

John Howard, former Prime Minister, believes that the Australian debate about choosing between the US and China is "infantile." His view is that the fascination with China and its economic size misses a big point--that it is GDP per capita that is the important measure of prosperity. On that metric, Mr. Howard says, China has a long way to go.  

Kim Beazley, former head of the Labor Party and presently Australian Ambassador to the US, places his emphasis on investment opportunities. He notes that the mutual investment between Australia and the US is over $1 TRILLION. China may be Australia's major trading partner, but the US is her major investment partner. He also cites the recent US energy discoveries and nearing energy independence as reasons to enhance those investments.

On a personal note, I corresponded with Ambassador Beazley prior to coming to Australia. He offered to have his staff find a place where my technical background could be put to good use. I must write him again and tell him how it's going. Which is to say, fantastically.

A public airing of the free speech issue

In this ABC interview, Senator George Brandis expresses his satisfaction with the defeat of various Government efforts to curtail freedom of speech and of the press in Australia. Those are the efforts I've mentioned in earlier posts.

It's interesting to watch political figures be interviewed on Australian telly. The interviewers are much more aggressive than we see in the US. You'll definitely see that in this one.

Senator Brandis' final point was a challenge to the media itself. The interviewer said to him, "Don't you think that all of us in the media are defenders of free speech?" He said, "I wish you were. I wish there had been more outrage when these measures were proposed." Why wasn't there? ABC, of course, is a publicly funded entity, so probably feels some reticence to criticize the Government. But you do have to wonder what people really care about. Someone said to me, "The US is about freedom and Australia is about fairness." How can people forget that the latter will disappear without the former?

I'm currently reading a wonderful novel from 1975, Poor Fellow My Country by Xavier Herbert.  It is a sweeping, involved panorama of Australia in the first half of the 20th century, through the first half of World War II.

The novel is so incredible that it will be the subject of a post dedicated to it. But check this out: the hero has been incarcerated, wrongly, on suspicion of seditious activity (he's one of those guys who speaks bluntly and doesn't curry favor with anyone.) His lawyer says to him (a close paraphrase), "Don't look for protection of your right of free speech in Commonwealth Law. There is no Bill of Rights such as found in the United Kingdom or the U.S.A. Free speech can be denied at the whim of any Chief Justice. And of course, His Honour's wig is the property of the Attorney-General's department."

Still true 70 years after the fictitious incident, and 40 years after the novel was written.