Human Rights and the War against Terrorism (2003)

Click here to return to the Articles and Opinion Pieces Index

Human Rights and the War against Terrorism

Opinion piece by Human Rights Commissioner Dr Sev Ozdowski, OAM. Unpublished, November 2003.

"A system of tyranny, the most galling, the most horrible, the most undisguised in all its parts and attributes that has stained the page of history or disgraced the annals of the world." British Prime Minister William Pitt, 10 November 1797, speech to the House of Commons concerning France under the government of the Directory.

". . . this regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions." President George W. Bush, 12 September 2002, speech to the UN General Assembly concerning Iraq under the government of Saddam Hussein.

A little over 200 years separates these two speeches by men that, at the moment of utterance, could fairly claim to be leaders of the free world; pursuing a dream of firstly protecting their homeland against 'contagion from abroad' and secondly, making the world a safer place in which to live.

Now I'm not suggesting that in either case these two leaders were motivated by anything other than good policy considerations - foreign policy hindsight, as in all human endeavours is a humbling affair. But it is interesting to observe that in both instances one of the first casualties of their respective wars against terror was human rights, in Pitt's case suspension of habeas corpus.

We are all aware that countries such as Britain, the United States and Australia have reacted to the 'War against Terror' by introducing a wide range of laws that significantly erode the individual's human rights. I consider this represents the most considerable challenge faced by human rights practitioners in recent times.

All of us have a pretty good appreciation of the extent to which the existing anti-terror laws in Australia and especially the ASIO changes have the capacity to impinge on our rights, and now the Attorney-General is proposing a further stiffening in this regard. Against this is the counterbalancing argument that for average Australians, in a post Bali world, let alone the horrors of September 11, there is genuine concern about their safety and a desire to see that the Government is 'taking care of things'.

There can be no denying, that terrorist attacks against civilian targets constitute the gravest possible assault on human rights imaginable. But it is very important to strike the appropriate balance.

At the simplest level, consider how much we have all taken the more ubiquitously intrusive changes in our stride. Take airport security for example - no longer are body searches the sole province of TV cop shows . There has to be a real concern that collectively we may become so de-sensitised to future erosions of our rights, that after a while we simply won't recognise how much we have sacrificed.

As Pitt cautioned in 1783: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves".

So what should we do?

I believe the answer lies in human rights education. Given the way representative government operates in this country, irrespective of which party is in power, we need to compete for the 'hearts and minds' of the Australian public with the same level of purpose that the government does.

When it comes to our core competency, knowledge about human rights - whether it be the more esoteric reaches of international conventions and covenants or the common option of an Australian Bill of Rights - if we want to protect the human rights of all Australians then we have to empower them with knowledge about the subject. Only then will they be in a position to signal to the government, particularly now on the security front, when enough is enough.

Let me conclude by saying that this educative process can take many different formats. Obviously 4.5 million page views of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's website last financial year (www. humanrights.gov.au) is a clear indication that our public education function is operating relatively effectively. But so too does a public inquiry process. And I am satisfied that the Children in Immigration Detention Inquiry, which should be reporting to parliament no later than May next year, has also played an educative role in alerting Australians to human rights issues.