| |
G4EBT > ACTION 10.07.06 13:43l 159 Lines 6687 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 902273G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Referral to VK Authorities 2/6
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<F6KMO<ON0BEL<GB7FCR
Sent: 060710/1212Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:49857 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:902273G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : ACTION@WW
Cont'd:
Clarification of the VK licence on matters of religion, and politics:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To repeatedly assert that messages which touch on religion or politics
are forbidden or out of place, and to castigate those who write them,
is unhelpful, adversarial, and may in itself even be unlawful.
To disagree vehemently with the views of others is fine, (it's called
"debate"), but to say they aren't allowed to express those views or
to vilify them for so doing, risks unwarranted interference with the
legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, and freedom of thought,
conscience and religion.
That isn't simply my opinion - it's the law, and has now been confirmed to
me in writing by the Australian Attorney General.
Some might say "If your messages comply with the UK licence, why are you
bothered about the VK one - what's your problem, why not just chill out?"
Simple.
Firstly, it's well past the time when inept VK self-styled "enforcers"
and other like-minded people were put on the right track.
Secondly, though writers of messages are the "authors", sysops (eg in VK)
are the "publishers" and theres' a risk they could be held to account for
publishing material which transgresses the terms of their licence.
I wouldn't want sysops anywhere to believe they could be in difficulties
by "publishing" messages which might be legitmate in the UK but not so in
VK or elsewhere.
In fact there's no difference. A message which complies with the UK
licence complies with the terms in VK and anywhere in the free world.
Even though certain VKs have menacingly said things like "You fellers
wouldn't get away with that stuff down here", that's just twaddle from
people who've lost the plot and painted themselves into a corner.
Though written differently, for all practical purposes UK and VK licences
mirror each other, as does domestic law and international law in the UK
and Australia, as I'll explain.
I wrote:
> I'm preparing a case to go to:
> 1) The Minister for Justice at the Australian Attorney-General's Dep't,
> which serves the people of Australia by providing expert support to
> the Government in the maintenance and improvement of Australia's system
> of law and justice.
> I'll be asking the Attorney General to confirm that the amateur radio
> regs, and observance of them by VK radio amateurs, must comply with
> Australia's Human Rights framework, and that the amrad regs cannot sit
> above it.
I did as I said - I prepared a paper with underpinning case law and
submitted it to the Attorney General (Philip Ruddock, MP) in Canberra
for comment.
Ordinarily the Attorney General doesn't deal directly with the general
public in Australia, let alone from foreign shores. His role is as an
interface between the legislature and the government rather than general
public.
However, Philp Ruddock has been kind enough to personally reply to me.
His reply confirms the position to be as I understood it to be. Namely,
that the terms and conditions of the VK amateur radio licence - just as
with the UK one, can't override the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
or International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (ICCPR).
Australian common law, as in the UK, is consistent with international law
on freedoms and their limitations, on which it is stated:
Quote:
The courts should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere
with fundamental rights. Such an intention must be clearly manifested by
unmistakable and unambiguous language.
General words will rarely be sufficient for that purpose if they do not
specifically deal with the question because, in the context in which they
appear, they will often be ambiguous on the aspect of interference with
fundamental rights.
End quote.
Hence, if the Australian amateur radio regs were intended to interfere
with basic human rights such as freedom of expression - by for example
forbidding discussion of politics or religion, that would need to be
spelt out by (quote) "unmistakeable and unambiguous language".
It isn't, nor could it be. Such a restraint would be illegal,
and evocative of a Stalinist State - not a democracy.
The term "intercommunication" in the regs must be interpreted in its
widest sense, to encompass freedom of thought conscience and religion, and
freedom of expression, as outlined in the Australian National Framework
For Human Rights, to which Prime Minister John Howard appears to be
particularly committed.
(See National Action Plan: http://www.dfat.gov.au/hr/nap/nap_2004.pdf)
Failure to observe that wide interpretation of "intercommunication" would
be in breach of the ICCPR.
The extent of Australia's commitment to Human Rights can be judged fron
the Attorney General's budget. For example, it spends:
A$550,000 on the Australian Customs Service for such tasks as preventing
illegal trade and travel across borders and to raise revenue;
A$300,000 on the Federal Police to investigate and prevent crime against
the Commonwealth and protect Australia's interests at home and overseas;
A$1,000,000 on Human Rights - more than both of the above put together.
It doesn't surprise me - Australia has been at the forefront of Human
Rights for a long time, having to contend with a troubled legacy from the
days of Empire, not wholly of its own making.
> It's 2006 - packet isn't a time machine piloted by two or three VKs to
> take us back to 1946, nor is the ww network their personal fiefdom. We
> don't live in the past, but in the present, with an eye to the future.
> Some need to come up to speed.
Hopefully they'll now settle down, be more circumspect, comply with the
regs they claim to be so anxious to uphold, and let others get on with
writing about legitimate topics as and when they want to, which they'll
do anyway, as the mood takes them.
It's fine to disagree with the views of others - I do it all the time.
What isn't acceptable is to assert that they don't have a right to hold
those views and to freely express them should they so wish through the
medium
of amateur radio.
By all means disagree with views that conflict with your own, but think
carefully before you interfere with the rights of others to express those
views, unless you wish to fall foul of the licence conditions - maybe even
worse.
Next, Prime Minister John Howard's commitment to Human Rights, and some
case law as it applies to the amateur radio licence.
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
QTH: Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 11:41 on 2006-Jul-10
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
