When voicing opposition is a crime

"While it has long been a crime under sedition laws to finance or participate in military action against Australian troops, the new laws add another dimension. As the laws were first proposed by Mr Howard on September 8, people face between three and seven years in prison if they "communicate inciting messages directed against other groups within our community, including against Australia's forces overseas and in support of Australia's enemies".

"Mr Howard has said the laws will not stop people criticising the war or calling for the withdrawal of Australia's troops, but actually speaking in favour of the insurgency does appear to fall within the definition of the new offence.

"But hostility to the invasion of Iraq is widespread among Muslims, and some believe the insurgency is a legitimate response, arguing the US-led forces have also caused many thousands of civilian deaths. In remarks that set him on a collision course with the Federal Government's new anti-terrorism laws, the president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ameer Ali, said the laws went too far and it was time to "draw a line through them". "If you speak in support of the resistance in Iraq, that must not be seen as promoting terrorism in this country," he told the Herald yesterday.

"A spokeswoman for Mr Ruddock said the incitement provisions would be drafted carefully and involve consultation with those with concerns about civil liberties."

This and more at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/backing-resistance-no-crime-pms-man/2005/09/30/1127804662697.html

When is a resistance an insurgency? Are all Iraqi forces opposing the invasion of Iraq part and parcel of the same element? Is trying to articulate a distinction between those who fight to oust foreign invaders and those who fight in support of Al-queada an insight to violence or an incite to violence? If the government cannot draft, with sufficient legal certainty, a proscription against comment that gives its citizens clear guidelines as to when they are acting criminally and when they are not, is there any purpose to the legislation other than to simply chill the free exercise of expression? Who is he talking to? Is there no limit to his ???