Amongst the research digests flying out of the Parliamentary Library to keep up with the flurry of legislation the Howard Government is rushing through parliament is an analysis paper on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 [pdf]. The bill is aimed at making "publications, films or computer games that advocate terrorist acts be refused classification". As the paper notes this effectively makes it illegal to sell or distribute such material.

Australian Republicans are by nature civil libertarians. As a political philosophy republicanism is heavily reliant on the American innovation to constitutionalism where political rights are inalienably enshrined as fundamental law in the constitution. This means neither the executive or legislative can intrude into these liberties and prohibit them. This includes freedom of speech and expression.

The Howard Government is illiberal and has become increasing so, governing from the conservative perception that society must be protected against individuals expressing themselves non-violently in a manner which may be repugnant to the state. I am not advocating for terrorism, but I do recognise that the state has no justifiable right to prohibit an individuals expression in this area.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties argued:

the Bill is unnecessary and is an ineffective restriction on freedom of speech. CCL notes the problems of adopting from the Criminal Code the definitions of 'advocates' and 'terrorist act' arguing that these definitions will produce absurd and unwanted results

The Australian Democrats also oppose the bill proving once again they are the most republican and liberal party in Australian politics:

Their [AD] objections are that it undermines Australians' right to freedom of speech and further, the Australian Government should not be legislating in this area on constitutional grounds

I also have to say I have not bought Terrorist Insurance for a reason. Yet I have car insurance, life insurance, health insurance, home insurance and even home appliance insurance. The reason is because terrorism is such a low risk factor. I accept more risk every day by getting behind the wheel of my car and backing out onto the street.

I am not scared of terrorism.

And I live in a higher risk part of the world than most Australians (Washington DC area). I also am not scared of materials advocating terrorism. Certainly not to the point where government needs to protect me or others from seeing such material.

This legislation is illiberal and unrepublican. It has no place being tabled in parliament.

Dan Deniehy was elected as the member of Argyle to the NSW Parliament at age 28. He ran on a platform as an independent liberal and described himself in his opening speech at the Lyceum Theatre as "the most rabid little democrat" ever to represent the people of Argyle.

His main targets were the political inequality of the squattocracy (his term) who survived through a mix of policy and malapportionment.

The politics of the people should be to wrest this mighty land from the hands of a faction [the Parker Government] whose only idea of its greatness was that it was a most excellent wool growing country.

An early identification of the "sheep's back" economy or its modern equivalent, "quarry Australia".

Deniehy advocated many Chartist positions such as paying members of parliament and universal male suffrage with no property requirements. Representing the Goulburn area was fiscally hard on Deniehy, he left Sydney for Goulburn in order to establish himself in a law practice, and unpaid public service put him deeper into debt.

While Deniehy, along with Harpur and Dunmore-Lang, was one of the great Australian republicans of the 19thC, his liberalism did not extend to the Chinese.

In consequence of the discovery of gold in the country, we are threatened by an overwhelming influx of barbarians, men of low social and mental development, and given to the indulgence of vices unfit to be named by a decent man.

If this immigration continued on a large scale, it would impart to the country a degraded and barbarous aspect, and the colonial descent would of a decidedly inferior caste.

Like Confucious and Jefferson, this is the retcon we have to perform for Deniehy, and in fact all Australian republicans of the 19thC. They were illiberal when it came to race and immigration.

I wonder what Australian republicans of the future will shake their heads over when they read the writings of 21stC republicans.

More illiberalism from the Westminster system, this time in South Australia. At least under a Bill of Rights an individual can appeal directly to the Judicial to have their grievances heard. Via Gary Sauer-Thompson:

My understanding is that under the legislation---Serious and Organised Crime Control Act 2008-- the Attorney-General has right to call an organisation, which could be anything from an informal group of people who meet at the local pub for a weekly drink through to a football club or a business, a Declared Organisation. The Attorney-General can use secret and untested evidence in making that declaration, and his decision can't be challenged in the courts.

Secondly, the substantive issue of motorcycle gang criminality, namely, a criminal conspiracy to commit serious offences using violence or otherwise, is not dealt with by the accepted process of adducing evidence at trial. Rather it is dealt with by a quasi judicial process of prohibition of an organisation by declaration and the imposition of control orders on its members. Severe penalties are then visited upon controlled members who continue some form of contact, even remote contact by post, fax, phone or e-mail - two years imprisonment for a first offence, five years for a second or subsequent offence.

The Cronulla Rioting visited similar types of emergency and arbitrary laws on NSW and remain on the books. Executive power in the Westminster system is directly co-mingled with Legislative power. Coupled with a lack of constitutionally entrenched individual or political rights, this allows the executive to over step their bounds and make illiberal laws with ease.

More: John Barrdear comments on the bikie laws and wonders:

It seems obvious that the legislature has a political incentive to be seen doing something, as time in the media's spotlight is currency to a politician. It's common, although not universally accepted, to suggest that the sharp end of the executive (i.e. those charged with enforcing the law) generally wish for more options in carrying out that enforcement. In a Westminster system of the executive having a controlling influence in the legislature, that would imply inexorable movement towards illiberalism over time as exogenously-sourced crises occur.

So how has liberalism survived for so long in the Westminster tradition? What, if you'll excuse the pun, arrests the movement to a sort of democratic dictatorship?

Which is a good question.