Muslim activists in Australia lose free speech case
- A person killing people with Quran in his hand is not Muslim, but a terrorist: Aamir Khan at #RNGAwards
- Dubai shuts down part of metro's green line over large fire
- Oceans, cyberworld should not become new theatres of contests: PM Modi
- Financial transactions motive behind Sheena's murder, CBI tells court
- J&K: Army jawan, three terrorists killed in separate encounters
Australia's highest court on Wednesday narrowly rejected the case of two Muslim activists who argued they had a constitutional free-speech right to send offensive letters to families of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Iranian-born Man Horan Monis, a self-styled Sydney cleric also known as Sheik Haron, was charged with 12 counts of using a postal service in an offensive way and one count of using a postal service in a harassing way over three years until 2009. Amirah Droudis was charged with aiding and abetting the offences. They face potential maximum prison sentences of 26 years and 16 years respectively if convicted.
The six judges of the High Court split on whether the charges were compatible with Australians' right to free speech. When the nation's highest court is tied, an appeal is dismissed and the lower court decision stands.
That sends the charges to a lower court where they will be heard on a date to be set.
Monis allegedly wrote letters critical of Australia's military involvement in Afghanistan and condemning the dead soldiers. He also allegedly wrote to the mother of an Australian official killed in a terrorist bomb blast in Jakarta, Indonesia, in 2009 and blamed Australian government foreign policy for the tragedy.
His lawyer David Bennett argued in the High Court last year that the letters were "purely political.'' He argued the charges were invalid because they infringed on Australians' right to freedom of political communication.
The Australian Constitution doesn't include an equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment. But the High Court has held for decades that the constitution contains an implied right to free speech because such political communication is essential to democracy. This right is not as extensive as that guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The pair had appealed in the High Court the unanimous ruling of three judges of the New South Wales state Court of Appeal in December 2011.
- Frequent promulgation of ordinances has more to do with managerial ethos
- Indian peacekeeping abroad: Samantha Power shows some deft diplomacy
- A myth called Tipu Sultan
- Raja-Mandala: Japan’s counter to China’s silk road
- It started with Perumal
- Open channels of communication are vital for democracy and governance