True Blue Cultural Revolution

I've just downloaded my very own copy of the draft Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 from the website of Jon Stanhope, the ACT's Chief Minister. I gather from Nine MSN that Phil Ruddock is pissed off mightily that Stanhope has leaked the bill. Here's a particularly choice section of the Bill, dealing with control orders:

104.4 Terms of control order

(1) If the issuing Court makes the control order, the order must:

(a) state that the Court is satisfied of the matters mentioned in paragraphs 104.3(b) and (c); and
(b) specify the name of the person to whom the order relates; and
(c) specify all of the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions mentioned in subsection (3) that are to be imposed on the 22 person by the order; and
(d) specify the period during which the order is to be in force, which must not end more than 12 months after the day on which the order is made; and
(e) state that the order does not begin to be in force until it is served personally on the person; and
(f) state that the person s lawyer may attend a specified place in order to obtain a copy of the order.

Note: An order in relation to a 16- to 18-year-old must not end more than 3 months after the day on which the order is made: see section ^104.14. 32

(2) Paragraph (1)(d) does not prevent the making of successive orders in relation to the same person. [my emphasis]

(3) The obligations, prohibitions and restrictions that the Court may impose on the person by the control order are the following:

(a) a prohibition or restriction on the person being at specified areas or places;
(b) a prohibition or restriction on the person leaving Australia;
(c) a requirement that the person remain at specified premises between specified times each day, or on specified days;
(d) a requirement that the person wear a tracking device;
(e) a prohibition or restriction on the person communicating or associating with specified individuals;
(f) a prohibition or restriction on the person accessing or using specified forms of telecommunication or other technology (including the Internet);
(g) a prohibition or restriction on the person possessing or using specified articles or substances;
(h) a prohibition or restriction on the person carrying out specified activities (including in respect of his or her work or occupation);
(i) a requirement that the person report to specified persons at specified times and places;
(j) a requirement that the person allow himself or herself to be photographed;
(k) a requirement that the person allow his or her fingerprints to be taken;
(l) if the person consents a requirement that the person participate in specified counselling or education. [my emphasis]

According to reasonable, mainstream opinion - that is the editorial and opinion pages of the Murdoch dailies - it's entirely inappropriate and a little odious to compare this legislation to the apartheid regime in South Africa worse yet to invoke the historical spectre of Nazi Germany. Comparisons with Stalinist Russia are likewise right out. Which leaves me a little stumped when it comes to describing a piece of proposed legislation which allows the courts to impose rolling periods of more or less complete house arrest. I suppose, in the current climate, civil libertarians should just be grateful that at least the re-education will be voluntary.