法國誓言對仇恨言論祭重罰，台灣做不到巴黎「查理週刊」(Charlie Hebdo)及猶太超市遭遇恐怖攻擊，造成17人喪生後。法國總統歐蘭德(Francois Hollande)23日誓言，法國將對「種族主義、反猶太及同性戀恐懼(homophobic)」的仇恨言論，祭出更嚴峻的法令。他表示將要求對仇恨言論採取更快速、更能見效的制裁。歐蘭德說，反猶太主義應被視為加重罪行，而想要成為聖戰士的人，也將根據一項即將在下個月公諸於世的情報法案，面對嚴峻的處罰。澳洲總理艾伯特於23日也表示對鼓吹恐怖活動的人實行更嚴厲的法律，針對這類組織的行動將包括「挑戰恐怖宣傳」的計劃，「這將包括強烈禁止詆譭、恐嚇或煽動仇恨的行為。」。這些國際潮流，台灣顯然置身事外，還有人引用盧梭關於言論自由老掉牙的說法認為該保護仇恨言論，如果盧梭知道現在的法國人怎麼樣仇猶與種族主義，又有受現代文明教育，絕對不會鼓吹漫無限制的言論自由。
中央廣播電台 (2015-02-24 06:57)
Australian security and counter-terrorism
Tony Abbott on national security: plenty of flags and rhetoric, but not much detail
There was little new in prime minister’s speech and his refusal to answer questions leaves the impression that its main purpose was to deliver soundbites on the ‘new dark age’
Link to video of the prime minister’s announcement.
Lenore Taylor, political editor
Monday 23 February 2015 03.01 GMT Last modified on Monday 23 February 2015 05.44 GMT
Tony Abbott’s rhetoric about the terrorist threat in his national security speech raced well ahead of any concrete details.
And the new measures that were flagged appear to go beyond what was recommended in the two reports to which the speech was ostensibly a response – the review of Australia’s counter-terrorism machinery, done within his own department, and the joint report from the secretary of the prime minister’s department and the secretary of the NSW premier’s department in the wake of the Lindt cafe siege.
The speech was delivered at the Australian federal police headquarters, where the prime minister was flanked by three ministers, scores of officials and six Australian flags, but where he was not available to answer questions about his statement’s contents. Which was a shame, because it raised a lot of questions.
Abbott announced dual citizens fighting with terrorist organisations would lose their Australian citizenship, something the government has been discussing for at least a year, and that the government was “examining” whether Australian citizens “involved in terrorism” “could” have some “privileges” revoked, such as the right to leave or return, and access to welfare payments.
But last year’s “foreign fighters” bill already gave the government the ability to cancel welfare payments to foreign fighters, even though under existing welfare rules anyone overseas on the dole for an extended period has it cancelled anyway. And social services minister Scott Morrison has revealed he hasn’t been asked to cancel anyone’s welfare since that legislation was passed last October. That bill also addresses the ability of foreign fighters to leave and return to the country. It is not clear what else the government is “examining” and how would it define “involvement”. Changes to citizenship laws were not recommended by the siege report.
Abbott also demanded the Senate pass existing government legislation. He pointed to the migration amendment protection and other measures bill 2014 – which says no one can be granted asylum if they have destroyed their documents or are travelling on false documents – asserting this legislation was proof that the government had “made a start on removing the benefit of the doubt for people who are taking advantage of us”. But as the Greens and many other groups have pointed out, it would also deny asylum to refugees genuinely fleeing persecution. And the government itself has said it is amending the bill and has not yet presented revised legislation. And Man Haron Monis was first allowed into Australia on a short-stay business visa, which, according to the Lindt siege report, he wouldn’t get today.
Abbott also pointed to the data retention bill, now before a Senate committee, which Labor appears likely to support with some amendments.
And rather than banning Hizb ut-Tahrir, as threatened before the speech, Abbott said he would be “taking action against hate preachers”, using last year’s laws and with “stronger prohibitions on vilifying, intimidating or inciting hatred”, which sounds a bit like a religious version of the now-abandoned changes to the Racial Discrimination Act – although the absence of detail makes it hard to tell.
His clearest commitments were the new national counter-terrorism coordinator and the intention to add Mosul province in Iraq to the “proscribed” travel zones under the existing legislation.
Of course Australians want governments to keep them safe, and governments should properly respond to terrible incidents like the one in Martin Place, but the absence of detail and the refusal to answer questions leaves the impression the main purpose of this speech was the prime minister’s rhetorical warning, delivered straight down the barrel of the television cameras, about the “rising dangers”, the “ominous signs” and the “new dark age”.