RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space
Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
 |  Subject: OZschwitz: Media chip away at a cornerstone of our rights  Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:48 pm | |
| The right to silence is under threat in Australia. The Howard government attempted to legislate the right to silence out of existence. Under threat of severe personal punishment, workers and union officials in the building and construction industry were compelled to appear before the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, facing fines and long jail terms if they chose not to answer the tribunal's questions.
Human rights - including the right to silence in legal proceedings - were once the valued cornerstone of Australia's judicial process. An individual's choice not to answer, or to answer in the manner they chose, was an accepted and legitimate human right.
The right to silence is fundamental to the concept that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. The obligation of proof rests absolutely with the state or the accuser. To erode the right to silence is to erode the presumption of innocence.
What John Howard began with his coercive and punitive legislation is now being entrenched and extended even further by the media. Coverage by radio, print, television and online journalists of the events surrounding the Iguanas nightclub incident is condemning to death the once-valued legal right to silence before the police and the judiciary.
Hyperventilated headlines in national newspapers such as "Labor duo snub police" and editorials asking 'What's to hide?" primed readers of broadsheets and tabloids alike for the assault to follow. For weeks, and despite providing a 15-page written statement to them, media across Australia breathlessly reported that I had "refused to talk to police".
Journalists adopted a tone of moral outrage, purportedly on the public's behalf, insisting that I should give up my right to provide information to the extent and in a manner of my choosing.
The demand that I roll up to the police station for the entertainment of the media was pressed, despite the fact that I had given an extensive statement and the police had not sought any further information.
The negative corollary of silence is, in the media mind, guilt. Remaining silent means, first, that one is branded as having something to hide and, second, that one is irrefutably guilty, or near enough to guilty not to trouble the professional ethics of many of media commentators.
The irresponsible and dangerous reductionism that this simplistic view has brought to public commentary now poses a significant threat to those who choose to rely on legitimate legal rights.
The right to silence is under threat in Australia. The Howard government attempted to legislate the right to silence out of existence. Under threat of severe personal punishment, workers and union officials in the building and construction industry were compelled to appear before the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, facing fines and long jail terms if they chose not to answer the tribunal's questions.
Human rights - including the right to silence in legal proceedings - were once the valued cornerstone of Australia's judicial process. An individual's choice not to answer, or to answer in the manner they chose, was an accepted and legitimate human right.
The right to silence is fundamental to the concept that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. The obligation of proof rests absolutely with the state or the accuser. To erode the right to silence is to erode the presumption of innocence.
What John Howard began with his coercive and punitive legislation is now being entrenched and extended even further by the media. Coverage by radio, print, television and online journalists of the events surrounding the Iguanas nightclub incident is condemning to death the once-valued legal right to silence before the police and the judiciary.
Hyperventilated headlines in national newspapers such as "Labor duo snub police" and editorials asking 'What's to hide?" primed readers of broadsheets and tabloids alike for the assault to follow. For weeks, and despite providing a 15-page written statement to them, media across Australia breathlessly reported that I had "refused to talk to police".
Journalists adopted a tone of moral outrage, purportedly on the public's behalf, insisting that I should give up my right to provide information to the extent and in a manner of my choosing.
The demand that I roll up to the police station for the entertainment of the media was pressed, despite the fact that I had given an extensive statement and the police had not sought any further information.
The negative corollary of silence is, in the media mind, guilt. Remaining silent means, first, that one is branded as having something to hide and, second, that one is irrefutably guilty, or near enough to guilty not to trouble the professional ethics of many of media commentators.
The irresponsible and dangerous reductionism that this simplistic view has brought to public commentary now poses a significant threat to those who choose to rely on legitimate legal rights
LNK |
|
