At the risk of being accused of being a bush lawyer, it occurs to me that I may have identified the commission of a very serious offence by a number of people. I think it is my patriotic duty to see to it that these law breakers are held to account, and as such I intend to notify the appropriate authorities.
I refer of course to Tom Flanagan, an adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister, National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg and even Sarah Palin. All three, and no doubt many more, have publically called for the extra judicial killing of Julian Assange. According to my reading, this is in clear breach of the Criminal Code Act 1995, specifically the crime of incitement. (I have included the relevant section of the act below).
I therefore call on the Australian Government to invoke our extradition treaties with the US and Canada, so that these dangerous terrorists can be brought to account.
Now I imagine there might be complications such as the fact that the acts weren’t committed in Australia, and they probably couldn’t be extradited under these circumstances even if there was the political will to do so. But the point is that there isn’t such political will – nor will there be any time soon. There is however the political will to have Assange extradited somewhere on some flimsy pretence to face some obviously concocted charges – none of which is any less ridiculous than my suggestion about incitement.
As the letter signed by so many prominent Australians today points out – our Government must defend Assange’s rights as a citizen. But we all know they won’t, because he has taken on the most powerful people in the world, and nobody does that and gets away with it.
As the letter signed by so many prominent Australians today points out – our Government must defend Assange’s rights as a citizen. But we all know they won’t, because he has taken on the most powerful people in the world, and nobody does that and gets away with it.
Criminal Code Act 1995
Chapter 2 General principles of criminal responsibility
Part 2.4 Extensions of criminal responsibility
Division 11
11.4 Incitement
(1) A person who urges the commission of an offence is guilty of the offence of incitement.
(2) For the person to be guilty, the person must intend that the offence incited be committed.
(2A) Subsection (2) has effect subject to subsection (4A).
(3) A person may be found guilty even if committing the offence incited is impossible.
(4) Any defences, procedures, limitations or qualifying provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of incitement in respect of that offence.
(4A) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of incitement in respect of that offence.
(5) It is not an offence to incite the commission of an offence against section 11.1 (attempt), this section or section 11.5 (conspiracy).
International Law, specifically the ACHR (American Convention on Human Rights) also makes it illegal, and seems to be covered in reasonable depth on this page:
ReplyDelete****************************************
Perhaps surprisingly, only the ACHR specifically provides for the banning of hate
speech, at Article 13(5), as follows:
Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that
constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar illegal action
against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race,
color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses
punishable by law.
********************************
U.S. law also makes incitement illegal. It's a bit more sketchy because of the intense focus on freedom of speech, but...
*****************************
In the specific case of death threats, the Supreme Court case is Watts v. United States (1969). There it says that only true threats aren’t constitutionally protected; mere hyperbole, humor or offensive methods of stating political opposition are protected. What is a “true threat? According to Virginia v. Black (2003),
-----------
a statement can’t be a punishable threat unless it’s made “with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.” Thus, following Black, a statement is a punishable threat only if a reasonable listener would understand it as a threat of attack and the speaker intended that the listener get that impression. (source)
----------------
****************
...So it's illegal all round.
This society is getting ridiculous. It is becoming so massively obvious that "the powers that be" only apply the law when they want, and don't apply it to themselves.
Cheers,
Kim.
Yes, it's just incredible. Julia Gillard's response to this has been total moral cowardice. She has gone down another notch in my estimation.
ReplyDelete