Freedom’s erosion

They said it would and could never happen. It was a country with a
constitution and a 97-year-old law that required the federal government
to seek permission from a state before sending in federal troops. Yet,
the unthinkable is coming to pass. The federal government will have
almost unlimited powers and will be able to unilaterally send in federal
troops to quell disturbances without any coordination from state
government.

Is this happening in some faraway Third World nation that is rife
with civil war and domestic conflict? Is it in one of those areas with
names too hard to pronounce where ethnic cleansing has been rampant for
generations? No, it is happening in an English speaking country with a
democratically elected government — Australia. What is more startling
the legislation has been in the works since June 28 when it passed
parliament with bipartisan support amid little fanfare in the Australian
press, let alone the world press. Prime Minister John Howard is working
very hard to ensure that the bill becomes law before the start of the
Sydney Olympic games, Sept. 15, 2000.

The legislation would modify the present Australian constitution,
which states, “The Commonwealth shall protect every State against
invasion and, on the application of the Executive Government of the
State, against domestic violence.” According to Australian Senator Bob
Brown writing in the

Sydney Morning
Herald, “The Defense Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 authorizes the Prime Minister to call out the armed services where ‘domestic violence’ is occurring or is ‘likely to occur.'” Australia Defense Minister John Moore has acknowledged that justification for the legislation is two-fold: The 2000 Sydney Olympics and the World Economic Forum coming up in Melbourne. However, in a

letter to the editor in the Sydney Morning Herald, he adds, “The Government has been working on this bill for some time and believes that the measures are desirable regardless of the impending Games.”

Although the legislation has stirred the emotions in Australia, it is hard to believe that a people who allowed the government to ban most guns, will be able to stop the passage of Bill 2000, a bill that gives the government the authority to fire upon their own citizens.

The legislative history of Bill 2000 is similar to the manner in which the government rammed through the Australian gun law of 1996. At that time the architect of the gun prohibition and buyback, Prime Minister John Howard, promised a “safer society.” The destruction of 600,000 legally owned firearms from tens of thousands of honest law-abiding citizens cost the taxpayers 500 million Australian dollars and has certainly not made any Australian safer.

The Sport Shooting Association of Australia, the National Rifle Association and others have pointed out that as a result of the 1996 Australian Gun Law crime has risen in that country. The NRA has even run television infomercials about the crime situation in Australia. Howard took umbrage at the ads and accused the NRA of “lies” and “distortions.” In a

WorldNetDaily
article in March, Jon Dougherty revealed how the Australian government crime figures proved that crime, with the exception of homicide, had gone up in all categories and the only one distorting the crime figures was Prime Minister John Howard. So much for a safer society!

Now Mr. Howard is promoting another draconian law with another lie. This time he says he is only going after terrorists. According to Toni O’Loughlin in

yesterday’s Sydney Morning
Herald, “Mr. Howard said the proposed laws were ‘primarily aimed at terrorism,’ not political protests, as Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown, the Democrats, civil libertarians and unions have claimed. ‘Of course it’s not aimed at civil disobedience,’ Mr. Howard told Brisbane radio.”

However, the newspaper summary of the bill stated, “The Defense Legislation Amendment (Aid to the Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 will give the defense forces powers to search and detain people, seize property and use ‘reasonable force’ if the Federal or State governments considered the police force incapable of controlling an outbreak of ‘domestic violence’ or where the Commonwealth’s interests were threatened.”

It is a sad day when a leader of a democratic nation can support legislation that strips away peoples’ right to peacefully protest their government and gives armed soldiers the right to shoot civilians upon the decision that something is “likely to occur.”

According to

London
Times the organizers of the Olympic games and the World Economic Forum are expecting some 90,000 protesters. Under this bill if those three government ministers decide that a demonstration or protest may include “domestic violence,” the streets of Sydney or Melbourne may be quickly filled with troops from the Australian army ready and able to shoot to kill

In a

letter to the
editor Sam Lee of the Coalition for Gun Control exposes his naiveté and lack of understanding John Howard’s motivation. He writes,

Surely this bill fails to complement the move towards tighter gun laws and greater public safety in this country. Countries that promote themselves as peace-loving and non-violent societies do not allow military powers to become involved in civilian affairs and do not take away people’s right to protest. Governments that introduce tight firearm laws in order to increase public safety should not then pass a bill that will allow for greater use of military weapons in the name of public safety.

What Sam Lee doesn’t understand is that the debate is not about firearms and gun laws; it’s about freedom. When John Howard wore a bulletproof vest in front of a rally by gun owners in 1996, gun owners understood Howard’s motivation. When a politician doesn’t trust the people with guns, the politician doesn’t trust anyone, not even gun prohibitionist like Sam Lee!

Freedom is rarely lost quickly; it’s lost slowly. It’s lost as citizens give up their inalienable rights one by one for the promise of safety from the state. If it can happen in one democracy, it can happen in all. Freedom is hard to win, but easily lost.

Tanya K. Metaksa

Tanya K. Metaksa is the former executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. She is the author of "Safe, Not Sorry," a self-protection manual, published in 1997. She has appeared on numerous talk and interview shows such as "Crossfire," the "Today" show, "Nightline," "This Week with David Brinkley" and the "McNeil-Lehrer Hour," among others. Read more of Tanya K. Metaksa's articles here.