Sedition Legislation in Australia

Welcome back to the Sydney PEN Blog for 2007! This year you can look forward to regular updates on writers in prison and detention here and abroad, censorship, translation, interviews with writers, artists and academics on freedom of expression and more. This week we start with a look at the Australian sedition laws, something PEN continues to follow very closely. This post forms part of a PEN Young Writers' Committee project to document the sedition legislation in an easily accessible way for writers, artists and the public at large. Hugo Bowne-Anderson, member of the PEN Young Writers Committee, begins our coverage with this discussion.

Sedition: 2. A concerted movement to overthrow an established government; a revolt, a rebellion, a mutiny. (Now rare) 3. Conduct or language inciting people to rebellion or a breach of public order. (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

As part of the "anti-terror legislation" package introduced in November 2005, already existing sedition laws were thoroughly revamped. The legislation is deliberately vague and almost any artist/journalist/citizen who speaks out in one way or another against governmental policy (this includes painting a peace sign on a mural) could be prosecuted. This is not to say they necessarily would be. However, that is not the point. The laws are so incredibly vague that one could interpret them in any fashion. Before explaining the laws, think about this for a second: David Marr reported that Philip Ruddock told the Herald the best guarantee against inappropriate use of the law was the attorney-general's personal role in approving sedition prosecutions.

The "modernised sedition laws" include:
- three that prohibit urging others to use force or violence against the government/Constitution/ lawful authority;
- two that prohibit assisting an enemy at war with Australia, even if a state of war has not been declared.

Think about the terms used here: urging and assisting. These terms are not defined in the Act. They are open for interpretation.

Example 1: Urging Australian soldiers in Iraq to throw down their arms may assist Iraqi insurgents. This is prosecutable under the new laws.

Example 2: Any work of art which Mr. Ruddock could interpret as being against this just war could assist our enemy. This is prosecutable under the new laws.

Example 3: Any work of art which Mr Ruddock could interpret as being against governmental policy could assist our enemy. This is prosecutable under the new laws.

The point: do not paint a peace sign anywhere. Do not publish and do not think.

Other changes to the legislation include:
- an increase of the maximum jail term from three years to seven years
- now intent need not be proven; recklessness is enough
- extension of laws to foreign citizens (which is absurd since sedition by definition is directed at one's motherland)
- extension of laws to extraterritorial actions.

This is for real.

The message is be afraid, be very afraid. Of course, these laws are not intended for practising artists, they are intended for Islamic fundamentalists. However, they are more than this: they are just another way for any authoritarian government to suppress dissent.

As a writer, as an artist, what is your function except to urge change, whether it be on a personal or political level? In this humble blogger's opinion, the most important art does both. In this sense, an artist's role is to be seditious. Most artists would see it as a badge of honour to be the first charged with sedition. This blogspot may now be seditious. Can you tell us, please, Mr Ruddock, in your humble opinion, is it?

Links for the interested:

- The Australian Law Reform Commission's President David Weisbrot on their inquiry into the legislation.:

- Senior Counsel Peter Gray's advice to Peter Garrett.:

- The legislation itself (see p.81 onwards). N.B. the legislation itself is even hard to find.