The price of freedom

Attorney-General George Brandis praised the new internet monitoring laws being passed. Photo: Andrew Meares

After the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, President George W Bush declared a War on Terror.

It was no such thing.

For those inclined to believe President Bush’s belief that retaliatory military action was necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan, it might more accurately have been described as a “War on Terrorism”, or a “War on Terrorists.”

For those who disagreed with the pretext for the War, it might be described less generously.

The War wasn’t pointless.

The lives of many people are now improved for the reduction in the oppression of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and for the rebuilding of some communities, and that’s thanks to the brave military personnel of many countries including Australia.

And of course, many people’s lives are worse off for the various losses they suffered… the loss of property, the loss of loved ones, the loss of life.

But the so called “War on Terror” didn’t combat terror and it most definitely didn’t defeat it. It fostered terror. It nurtured terror. That’s what wars do.

People felt terrified. They didn’t then, and don’t now, feel less fear or terror as a result of the War on Terror.

We are now more scared than ever of, not only rigid discernible groups of perceived enemies, but also  the random terrorist, the aggrieved religious fundamentalist with such a poor understanding of their faith that they believe enacting vengeance and inflicting pain and suffering is part of their duty.

This is the Age of Terror. And if the aim of the terrorist is to change and disrupt the way their enemies live their lives and make them live in a constant state of terror – well you know the cliché … the terrorists have already won.

In America, the Patriot Act that was passed as a reaction to the September 11 attacks changed the fabric of America substantially.

The principal of Habeus Corpus was suspended, meaning there was no longer a need for evidence to hold a person against their will… and for as long as the authorities liked, without the ability to contact their loved ones.

Prisoners, including Australians, were held at Guantanamo Bay without the presentation of any evidence of their guilt with no expectation of speedy access to justice.

All of this was justified under the broad banner of compromises that need to be made to remain safe. The removal of basic precepts of justice was regarded as a fair trade off for improving a nation’s ability to combat terrorists.

It’s the ridiculous old paradox, how much freedom is worth surrendering to retain one’s freedom?

But that was in America. It couldn’t happen in Australia…

“What we’ve seen [tonight] is I think a scary, disproportionate and unnecessary expansion of coercive surveillance powers that will not make anybody any safer but that affect freedoms that have been quite hard fought for and hard won over a period of decades.”

Senator Scott Ludlam (Greens)

Overnight, the senate passed nation-changing legislation that will give our spy agencies the power to monitor the entire Australian internet with just one warrant. In other words, they can check all of our emails, all of our transactions, everything we say and do online, and we won’t even know that it’s happening. And not just check that stuff, it can be stored. Indefinitely.

And, just to be absolutely clear, it was passed with bipartisan support from the ALP.

The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill is not quite law yet. It is expected to be rubber stamped in the House of Reps on Tuesday.

Despite the fact it is the most massive change to privacy in recent Australian history, it was not foreshadowed at the last federal election and has not inspired public outcry. It will just be done.

And there are more far-reaching provisions under the Bill. Anyone, be they a blogger, a whistle blower or even a journo, who “recklessly” discloses information that relates to a “special intelligence operation” faces up to 10 years jail.. AND… any operation can be declared “special.”

The Senate vote went 44 in favour, and 12 against. One of those against was Greens senator Scott Ludlam who described the legislation this way.

“What we’ve seen [tonight] is I think a scary, disproportionate and unnecessary expansion of coercive surveillance powers that will not make anybody any safer but that affect freedoms that have been quite hard fought for and hard won over a period of decades,” Senator Ludlam said.

Additionally, another bill enabling the collection of internet and phone metadata for a period of up to two years for warrantless access by law-enforcement and spy agencies will be introduced later this year.

Given how much of our lives are now lived online, this legislation amounts to massive changes to the freedoms we presumed we had. And we didn’t see it coming. How could we? You only expect attacks on our freedom and privacy from without, not within.

So here’s the question: does the impending loss of freedom and the realisation that our private communications will no longer be private increase or decrease our sense of terror?

Still, not everyone will be horrified by this. Somewhere, someone is smiling because they’ve already won.

(Originally published on the Goulburn Post website).