The latest in gun control from Australia

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by woolly *
**Australian Gun control debate posted by Max Torque

I agree overall that we are incorrectly applying our American value system to a foreign situation, but I need to make this point before I butt out.

I have seen several people make the statement “we ____ans don’t have a right to bear arms or to free speech.” This is incorrect. In my opinion, ALL people have the rights noted in the U.S. Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is simply a codified recognition of natural rights that have existed always, not a set of laws that graciously “grants” us these rights. Our Declaration of Independence begins by saying “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…” The original ten Amendments to the Constitution were made in recognition of these natural rights, and simply promised not to strip the citizens of these rights.

In other words, the Bill of Rights doesn’t tell us what American Citizens are allowed to do, but rather tells the American Government what it is NOT allowed to do.

22

It looks like responding to previous posts in specific will probably just get folks riled up. I want to clarify the reason I started this thread:

My intention was NOT, emphatically, to compare the U.S. government to the Australian government.

My aim was this: in the past, we’ve had many many gun control debates on this board. Often, the debates include an assertion that private gun ownership is an important safeguard to keep the government from pushing us (the average citizenry) around.

Four years ago, Australia enacted some mighty tough laws restricting gun ownership. Now, the Australian government has introduced a bill that will allow the federal government to use the military to silence “domestic violence” without the prior approval of the individual state.

So, a government first disarms its citizens, then attempts to make it legal to use the military against its own people. This seems to fit the apocalyptic pattern we pro-gun folk have predicted. The question, then, is: is that really what’s happening? I wasn’t being critical of Australia, or looking to argue over who has the “better” system, just looking for opinions on the supposed pattern itself.

So, if y’all have evidence/opinions on the point, hop to it. And what do you think about the proposed law, while we’re at it?

23

You are not serious I hope. There are people who would argue that Bills of Rights are entirely ineffective - and certainly that is the way I would be likely to vote if a constitutional amendment for such a Bill were proposed in Australia.

Some of your rights would not be relevant under our system of government. Some of them, frankly, just seem a little oddball.

The proposed legislation about the use of the army is troubling. The debate here is proceeding, but without any great hysteria. My guess is it is the usual bureacratic response: always ask for more than you need. I doubt it will get up in the Senate, but although it is troubling I won’t lose any sleep over it if it does. Civil society is established in the hearts of the population and it is as secure here as anywhere.

picmr

24

I also disagree with joe cool’s statement. Certainly, natural law theory justifies saying that certain rights are universal attributes of each human, and should be recognized by law. But, I don’t agree that the drafters of the U.S. Bill of Rights happened to capture all those fundamental rights, and that everything they put in the Bill of Rights is of universal relevance.

To my mind, some of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are very much the product of the particular society that produced them. For example, Amendment III (the right not to have soldiers quartered on you) doesn’t appear to have found its way into any other country’s constitutional structure, nor any international conventions on human rights. This suggests it is not a human right of universal value.

Similarly, the right to a civil jury in all cases involving more than $20 (Amendment VII) doesn’t strike me as a universal human right, especially since many liberal democratic countries (mainly civil law jurisdcitions) don’t use the jury system. (Hell, the USSC doesn’t even think it’s “essential to ordered liberty,” or whatever the catchphrase is for applying it to the states via Amendment XIV and “due process.”)

Similarly, other countries have constitutional charters that include rights that are not expressly included in the Bill of Rights, like an absolute equality of the sexes (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 28), or a right to privacy (some of the post-Communist Eastern European countries).

In other words, while a constitutional charter usually has its roots in natural law theories, it will also contain rights specific to the particular political and legal culture which produced it. The U.S. Bill of Rights is a particular example of this thesis.

25

Max Torque

Thank you for your clarification.

On the legislation itself, a recent development may be of interest.

Martin Ferguson, ALP frontbencher and a man with an impeccable left wing pedigree (before entering Parliment Ferguson was ACTU President, the peak Australian union body) has today has stated that the ALP is “generally comfortable” with the legislation as it is expected to be tabled.

Apart from a couple of minor drafting changes, it appears that the ALP will support the legislation. Given that we are now in the phoney political war in the run up to the next federal election, such bipartisan agreement is not common.

If the ALP had decided to oppose this legislation, I don’t think that there is much doubt the Democrats and Greens would have also been onboard and it would have been blocked.

While you could read a grand conspiracy theory into this move, it would be more likely that they’re in broad agree with the Liberal approach and have concluded that there is no political advantage in blocking the legislation.

26

In British (and Australian) parlance, to “table” a bill is to bring it out for discussion and eventual vote. (I believe that it is the equivalent of “reading it out of committee” in the U.S.)

This, of course, is confusing to those of us in the States where “tabling” a motion means to take it out of consideration for a while as the proponents look it over to see whether they can make any changes to it to make it more palatable to its opponents.

27

As stated before, I don’t want to get into a gun control debate, but I’ll try to present the following facts about Australian society:

  • The legislation 4 years ago did not ‘disarm’ Australians, for the simple reason that most Australians were not ‘armed’ in the first place. I don’t know anyone who had to give up any weapons at that time - I’m not saying that there weren’t thousands of people who had to, I’m just saying they are not the majority of the population.

  • The laws that were introduced banning high powered automatic weapons were supported by all major political parties and general public sentiment at the time, in response to a mass murder which would not have been possible with a non-automatic gun.

  • The current law under debate has received support from both sides of parliament, but has been widely criticised in the media (left-leaning and right-leaning) for being vague, or dangerous, or unAustralian.

  • Nobody is connecting the tightening of the gun laws to these new laws AT ALL, except the NRA - there have been lots of articles on whether or not it is constitutional or correct, but gun laws have not come into it. Just because the NRA is making a connection between ‘disarming’ and ‘crazy laws’, doesn’t mean anyone else is, or that this connection is correct.

HenrySpencer.

28

[gracious]

No probs

[/gracious]

Beg to differ slightly here - those ads I mentioned weren’t for Australian consumption, they were for yours. I just find it a bit impolite to be ‘used’ in this way, but if the stuff was fabricated for my consumption then I’d be keen to find out why.

No no no! Australians dislike other nations for one reason, and one reason only. If you beat us at any sort of sport, you are on the blacklist. Fortunately, it is a very short list at the moment. South Africa are our newest best friends after the weekend.

29

In his WWII memoirs, Winston Churchill mentions a little dispute at the liason committee of American and British generals. They has some proposal to consider, and the Brits wanted to go ahead with it, so they said they would table it. The Yanks also wanted to go ahead with it, and got upset with the Brits for apparently wanting to delay it. Much “harumphing” and “well really” later, they discovered they were actually in agreement.

As Shaw said: “Britain and the U.S. - two countries separated by a common language.”

30

Just an update: the bill was debated and delayed in the Senate today and tomorrow the Senate will consider amendments proposed by the ALP, the Democrats (note - nothing like yours) and the Greens (well, actually, the Green).

Tenor of today’s debate:
[ul][li]Some concern from all non-government parties, particularly from Bob Brown (Green)[/li][li]General castigation of the government for considering this Bill for 2.5 years, then stuffing up its content and introduction so badly[/li][li]Agreement (from the non-government parties) that the Federal government currently has the power to use troops and that this Bill is an attempt to codify powers which already exist to clarify the army’s role and legal liability in the event that they are deployed.[/li][li]Foreshadowing of amendments to clarify the (non) use of army for strikes, demonstrations and the need for appropriate consultation with State governments about any deployment. Also discussion of the necessity of legislation during Olympics and questions of whether there should be a sunset clause (the government claims - not very plausibly - that this is nothing to do with the Olympics, and they are not trying to push more general powers through under this cover)[/li][li]Some general hypocritical (IMHO) rambling from the Green Senator about States’ rights[/ul][/li]
We shall see what happens tomorrow.

The mood remains calm. This is not the most notable humans rights issue at the moment here, which continues to be the treatment of refugees.

Just keeping you up-to-date.

picmr

31

picmr,

Thanks for keeping us up to date - this isn’t getting much informative attention in the media; mostly arguments for or against.

BTW, have you listened much to the parliamentary broadcasts? They’re quite amazing at times - bring back memories of when I was a student teacher taking year 7 classes.

HenrySpencer

32

I would have to agree that the gvt. is doing this for the Olympics, especially with the concern of international terrorism that’s been floating around the talkback radio circut. (I’m more concerned with that fact that you’ll be arrested if you wear one of those “fuck the olympics” t-shirts anywhere near a games venue. But that’s another thread…)

Also as has been mentioned, the World Economic Forum is in Melbourne in September, and one huge-arse protest as been organised. Although this one is more of a party, as opposed to the riots of Seatle. http://www.s11.org

One thing that I would like to mention regarding the difference in cultures is that in Australia, we don’t even have a ‘right’ to vote (arguably). We have no choice: vote or be fined ($150, I think). This generally serves the purpose of people not caring too much about extremeists in politics, because there are usually enough intelligent people voting to minimise any harm. Even when someone along those lines does turns up (ie, Pauline Hanson) who can get a comparitivly huge number of votes, the system minimises the harm caused because those votes are taken in their true context as a relatively small portion of the population. We have no fear of tyrannical government and so no need for guns. In fact, if a bill was introduced giving Australian citizens the right to own guns, or one making voting voluntary, I would protest both.

33

Big Yellow:

I would be interested in knowing why, at least on the guns part (this is not a smartass challenge; I’m genuinely curious to know why, and if your thoughts are reflective of mainstream thought in Australia)?

If you feel uncomfortable posting here, feel free to e-mail me (you’ll find my e-mail address in my profile).

ExTank

34

A bit of an update, then a reply to ExTank. I don’t know whether the Kingswood will reply here or has emailed you, but I will give it a go.

[/quote]
First, an update on the army powers thing. The Senate is considering amendments from the ALP (Australian Labor Party, the main opposition), the Democrats (who hold the balance of power and the Green Senator. The amendments as I understand them are attempts to define and restrict the use of the power. As stated earlier, the Federal Government already has the power to deploy the army and the current government claims that this is an attempt to codify those powers.

As yet the Liberal/ National Coalition government (the Liberal Party being the main right of centre party, the National Party being ummm… largely socially conservative big-handouts to farmers party) has not said whether they will support any or all of the proposed amendments.

The upshot is that it is not clear whether the Bill will get up in its present form, in an amended form or at all. In any case, the big issue in the Senate today was the exercise of the Senate’s effective veto right over Queensland’s Native Title legislation, which caused the resignation of the shadow Aboriginal Affairs minister over the ALP’s preparedness to pass an amended form of the Queenland (Labor) government’s scheme.

[/quote]
Now onto a reply to ExTank. I do this with some trepidation, since it effectively involves trying to give a fair impression of political opinion in Australia, and I naturally have my own biases, so bear with me.

There is a diversity of views over gun ownership in Australia, but it is of a very different character to the US.

When after the Port Arthur mass murder the current government (I dislike them strongly BTW) moved to ban most forms of semi-automatic weapons, they were supported by about 90% of the population, according to the polls. Many people would favour much more restrictive gun laws.

Some people were unhappy about the recent changes. They saw the changes as an over-reaction and as nannying by the government.

Opinions are divided somewhat between city and country. Australia is an amazingly urbanised country: put Sydney Melbourne and Brisbane together and you have well over half the population. The main opposition to gun control is rural, and it is mainly in outback Queensland, Tasmania and rural New South Wales. This is also where support for what you might call far right parties is at its highest.

The important difference here is that whilst people may disagree about the desireability of the laws the discourse is almost entirely on those terms. If you said in the course of a political discussion that people had a “right” to own guns, my guess is that most people would think you were odd - that the government legislates over these matters is pretty much taken for granted. Bear in mind however my earlier remarks about the rural/ urban divide and the fact that I am an educated Melbournian and that perhaps my views are not entirely representative.

I would say this with more confidence: If you went a bit further and suggested that the government was trying to disarm the population for nefarious purposes, almost everybody would just laugh. Here (please note I am not trying to suggest that this appropriate in your country) this idea has about as much respectablity as the people who wear tinfoil hats to stop alien broadcasts.

Our approach to rights and our confidence (warranted or not) that the government is under some control is very different to yours. We do not have a Bill of Rights, and a very respectable body of opinion has it that our freedoms are protected better by not having such a Bill.

Freedoms are given different weights here. When radar-detectors became available, they were banned and there was almost no fuss: almost everybody thought the things had no legitimate use and were of the opinion that our civil society could keep any potential abuses of power in check.

picmr

35

** for ExTank **

first a caveat: any Australian posting on SDMB is probably automatically disqualified as been classed as representative of mainstream Australia. :slight_smile:

However, I’d concur with picmr’s summary.

My background is conservative rural, what was once described as the “bunyip aristocracy”. Perhaps now it might be better termed agarian socialist. The family run a number of grazing properties situated about 1,000km from the state capital (Sydney).

The family has always had guns. Dad had a typical arsenal of several bolt action .22s, single barrelled shot guns and a couple of antique pieces. All were legal under the legislation, but they were rarely, if ever used and kept in an unsecured cupboard (since the house is 12km from the road, there isn’t much passing traffic).

There was a bit of grumbling, but without duress a .22 and a shotgun were retained in a properly secured cabinet and the residual were surrendered or disarmed. The same thing occured throughout the district.

I’ve been city based from many years, don’t possess a weapon and couldn’t justify one on any grounds.

As picmr pointed out, the magority of Australians wanted stronger gun control laws than were enacted. It wasn’t politically possible, and i think this was unfortunate.

There was no coherent argument that the type of weapons involved had any legitimate application that justified their retention by the general public.

In the mid 80’s the NSW Labor government of Barrie Unsworth was reputedly thrown out of office by the pro-gun lobby vote. That was a myth, and now it has been put to rest. 'Tis a profound pity the Howard government hasn’t shown the same fortitude in other matters.

36

Picmr really said almost all of what there is to say. There are nearly no guns here. The guns that are here are more often than not used for legitimate purposes. (cops, soldiers, security guards, farmers, sporting shooters and people who have grandads old bolt action from WW2 as a memento and maybe a couple of others I forget - protecting your house and property from intruders is NOT one) There is no need for a right to a gun. If you apply for one without having a reason like the ones listed above then chances are that you will be turned down. And rightly so.

Before Port Aruthur, mass murder was something that happened only in America (in the eyes of Australians). I guess that maybe people were scared that along with American TV shows and brands, and restaurants and so forth, would come American gun culture. There was a general consensus to nip that in the bud.

I can understand the viewpoint that the tough gun laws were a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, but this doesn’t necessarily mean it was a bad thing. Often people don’t realise how bad a situation is until something tragic happens.

I also am not a fan of our current government. Over the last few days they’ve all but withdrawn from the United Nations because the UN criticised our Human Rights record (in relation to indiginous people and refugees). The Gvt. claims that there are countries more deserving of criticism than us. To me that seems like me getting busted at an RBT (Random Breath Testing unit) for being over the limit and claiming that I shouldn’t be charged cause there are rapists and murders out there who the cops should really be looking for… But I digress…

I would protest gun rights because I would see them (and this is in the Australian context, remember) as being the product of paranoia. Our system of government is too stable for any sort of oppressive tyrant to get elected. Our armed forces are among the best trained and best equipped in the world, so we don’t fear an external invasion. Crime is an international low, and our population centres are very, very centralised and very few people live in rural areas.

I don’t know if my views are representative or not, but I don’t think that they’re too far off the mark.

37

The Bill has been passed. There were a large number of amendments proposed by various parties, but in the end the Coalition and the Labor Party did a deal and it got up. See this link for scant details.

If the army gets involved next week at the World Economic Forum, I will have to revise my view.

picmr

38

The thread is probably long dead, but the army didn’t get involved at the World Economic Forum. Was mainly a few skirmishs between s11 and the local constabulary. By Australian standards, it got a bit ugly, but then we are pretty tame on civil disobedience.

The legislation wasn’t enacted until the Wednesday (which was the last day of the conference), though the army could have been called in under the old provisions.

At the Olympics one of the Australian shooters (Michael Diamond)won the gold medal for Trap Shooting, defending the title he won at Atlanta. An interesting touch was that the Prime Minister (John Howard) was in the crowd and they met and spoke after the event.

The weapons being used are, of course, legal under the legislation.

39

How could the Australian Federal goverment misuse the military in domestic situations?? If they tried to take over, God knows why (They are already in power they were voted there)??

Even if they were successful in declaring Martial Law the new ‘Were real people with real Jobs and real lives’ defence force would just laugh and go home to their families…

Even if all of our military stayed then they could put one person in each town and city of Australia and a couple of tanks in each large city!!! This is hardly enough to sustain martial law! Remember when our (Australian) federal government decided to send a piece keeping mission to East Timor… they remembered ‘Oh that’s right if we send over a few thousand troops we wont have any left to defend Australia!!!’

In summing up… To even think that the Australian Government could misuse the Australian Military on Australian soil is Laughable unless they give SOCOG control, I am sure they could find a way to screw up!

PerfectDark :slight_smile: