"The proposed changes raise fundamental problems by infringing on the right to free speech," says Stephen Blanks, secretary of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL).

A discussion paper released by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in early May calls for amendments to the National Classification Code and Classification guidelines in order to ban films, literature and games that advocate terrorist acts. The paper calls for public responses to the proposed changes to be submitted by May 29.

Blanks will enter a submission to the proposals, which he describes as far reaching and objectionable. "Existing law is perfectly adequate to deal with works which might produce terrorist results," he says.

Byrne says that the current classification code is adequate and has produced good results. "Expanding the ambit, to what are in fact political issues, fundamentally changes the (classification code) regime and it's a very dangerous step for us to take," he argues.

The discussion paper, drafted by federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, bases the term 'terrorist act' on the definition used in Australia's Commonwealth Criminal Code.

Byrne is concerned with the use of this type of language. "It's so loose that there is a danger that a government which is feeling threatened by public opinion, or perhaps a government of a particular political persuasion, as has been elected in some other liberal democracies, could use that to further expand the ambit and give us full-blown political censorship," he says.

The current classification code enabled the banning of two books in July 2006 -- due to their promotion of acts of terrorism -- by the review board of the government's Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), a statutory body. 'Defence of the Muslim Lands' and 'Join the Caravan', both written by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, were among eight 'Islamic' books referred to the Review Board by Ruddock, with the other six being classified as unrestricted.

A Ruddock spokesman told IPS that the attorney-general was in the process of developing ways in which academics and students could be granted limited access to the publications. This was apparently in response to the outcry following the ban, when Melbourne University's library was forced to remove the books from its shelves.

At the same time, the university chose to remove 'The Lofty Mountain'. The book, also by Azzam, remains inaccessible due to the university's fear of prosecution.

Bree Ahrens, president of Melbourne University's Student Union (MUSU), opposes the ban. "It was just such a blatant reflection of a society where the government is becoming increasingly scared of ideas, which I think reflects so poorly on the way we're headed," she says.

MUSU responded with a poster campaign which advertised the internet versions of the banned books, as well as symbolic book burning outside the library. "We just wanted to link it with historical uses of book-burning and book-banning," says Ahrens.

While Ahrens sees the attorney-general's plan to allow limited access to the books as an acknowledgement of the educational merits of the works, she also thinks it will result in a two-tiered system. "I don't think we should be assuming that our good, educated academics or students are not at all threatening. I feel it sets up this dichotomy of the uneducated mass versus the respectable educated class, which I find problematic," she says.

IFLA's Alex Byrne says that while the granting of limited access to academics and students is a step in the right direction, people in Australia should be able to access ideas. "I think we are an open community and things should be out there to be tested. If they're pernicious, then they should be exposed as being pernicious," he says.

Blanks is concerned that allowing access to academics and students will result in attention from ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation). "You could imagine that the security services are going to have a very close interest in who is actually accessing the works," he says.

Executive Director of the Australian Society of Authors (ASA), Jeremy Fisher, opposes the banning of books. "If you've got difficulty with the ideas that are put forward in the book, then you should refute those ideas, not ban the book," he says, citing Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' as an example of a freely available book whose ideas can be contested.

Waleed Aly, from the Islamic Council of Victoria, argues that banning particular publications because of their advocacy of 'terrorist acts' will not stop ideas permeating throughout society. "I think that it probably misreads the situation to say that the process of radicalisation is one that occurs as a process of reading literature. Certainly that might be part of it, but it is far more a social process. It involves really being involved in certain social networks, I think," he says.

While Aly argues that removing some freedoms may be justified, he questions the effectiveness of limiting access to certain publications. "I don't think most people would disagree with the proposition of giving up some freedoms in order to protect security, but in so doing that just increases the onus that every security measure really is justified and will have a real impact. And on this one I'm not sure that's the case," he says, referring to the books by Azzam.

Source: IPS - Inter Press Service News Agency