36 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 9, 2018
financial and other privileges (accommodations)
or protections (such as religious vilification
laws).
Law-and-order legislative responses to terrorism
include proscribing groups deemed to be
terrorist organizations authorizing preventative
detention and control orders (now applied to
individuals as young as 14), cancelling
Australian passports for dual citizens, and
extending prison sentences beyond term for
those deemed a continuing risk to the
community. These legislative responses are
important to note because they provide a
framework in which programs aimed at subject-
focused deradicalization (or deconversion)
programs can be facilitated.
Proscription
Originally, placing an organization on a list of
banned organizations depended upon prior
identification by the United Nations Security
Council as a terrorist organization. This was
deemed not to be sufficiently efficacious, so
under the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism
Organisations) Act 2004 (Cth), the federal
government was enabled to “list terrorist
organizations based on Australian national
interest and security needs, as well as the advice
of Australian intelligence organisations”
(Ruddock, 2004, p. 257).
The procedure for listing is that the Attorney-
General
must be satisfied that the relevant
organisation is directly or indirectly
engaged in preparing, planning,
assisting in or fostering the doing of a
terrorist act. The Act also provides that
the leader of the opposition must be
briefed about a proposed listing. Any
regulation listing a terrorist organisation
is subject to disallowance on the
recommendation of the Parliamentary
Joint Committee on ASIO, DSD and
ASIS … the regulations are subject to a
two-year sunset clause. (Ruddock, 2004,
p. 257)
In addition, the Anti-terrorism Act 2004 (Cth)
made it an “offence for a person to be a member
of an organisation that a court finds to be a
terrorist organisation, even though not listed by
regulation” (Ruddock, 2004, pp. 257–258), and
the Anti-terrorism Act (No 2) 2004 (Cth)
established an association offense applying
to people who have links with a terrorist
organisation or its members, but who
themselves are not members of the
organisation and who do not have an
active involvement with the activities of
the organisation. (Ruddock, 2004, pp.
257–258)
The proscription regime raises fundamental
questions about the appropriateness, the legality,
and the efficacy of banning organizations. In an
era when the fundamental right of citizens to
safety and personal security is being challenged,
questions arise as to the extent the proscription
regime might be expanded (or might exist at all)
consistent with notions of democratic
governance.
Preventative Detention
Preventative and control orders are designed to
“permit the detention of terrorist suspects in
order to prevent a terrorist attack from occurring
or to protect evidence relating to a terrorist act,
and to permit control of the movement and
activity of persons threatening a terrorist risk”
(Rose &Nestorovska, 2007, p. 41). The
following acts reflect this approach.
Under the ASIO Legislation Amendment
(Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth), the Australian
Security Intelligence Organisation may
obtain a warrant to question, and detain
while questioning, people involved in,
or who may have important information
about, terrorist activity’. The Act
enables a ‘person to be questioned for
up to 24 hours (or 48 hours where
interpreters are used) and to be detained
for up to seven consecutive days.
(Ruddock, 2004, p. 258)
Under the Anti-terrorism Act (No 2) 2005 (Cth),
an initial preventative detention order for up to
48 hours may be granted to a member of the
Australian Federal Police by a senior AFP
member and continuing orders by appointed
judicial officers, with provision for repeated
financial and other privileges (accommodations)
or protections (such as religious vilification
laws).
Law-and-order legislative responses to terrorism
include proscribing groups deemed to be
terrorist organizations authorizing preventative
detention and control orders (now applied to
individuals as young as 14), cancelling
Australian passports for dual citizens, and
extending prison sentences beyond term for
those deemed a continuing risk to the
community. These legislative responses are
important to note because they provide a
framework in which programs aimed at subject-
focused deradicalization (or deconversion)
programs can be facilitated.
Proscription
Originally, placing an organization on a list of
banned organizations depended upon prior
identification by the United Nations Security
Council as a terrorist organization. This was
deemed not to be sufficiently efficacious, so
under the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism
Organisations) Act 2004 (Cth), the federal
government was enabled to “list terrorist
organizations based on Australian national
interest and security needs, as well as the advice
of Australian intelligence organisations”
(Ruddock, 2004, p. 257).
The procedure for listing is that the Attorney-
General
must be satisfied that the relevant
organisation is directly or indirectly
engaged in preparing, planning,
assisting in or fostering the doing of a
terrorist act. The Act also provides that
the leader of the opposition must be
briefed about a proposed listing. Any
regulation listing a terrorist organisation
is subject to disallowance on the
recommendation of the Parliamentary
Joint Committee on ASIO, DSD and
ASIS … the regulations are subject to a
two-year sunset clause. (Ruddock, 2004,
p. 257)
In addition, the Anti-terrorism Act 2004 (Cth)
made it an “offence for a person to be a member
of an organisation that a court finds to be a
terrorist organisation, even though not listed by
regulation” (Ruddock, 2004, pp. 257–258), and
the Anti-terrorism Act (No 2) 2004 (Cth)
established an association offense applying
to people who have links with a terrorist
organisation or its members, but who
themselves are not members of the
organisation and who do not have an
active involvement with the activities of
the organisation. (Ruddock, 2004, pp.
257–258)
The proscription regime raises fundamental
questions about the appropriateness, the legality,
and the efficacy of banning organizations. In an
era when the fundamental right of citizens to
safety and personal security is being challenged,
questions arise as to the extent the proscription
regime might be expanded (or might exist at all)
consistent with notions of democratic
governance.
Preventative Detention
Preventative and control orders are designed to
“permit the detention of terrorist suspects in
order to prevent a terrorist attack from occurring
or to protect evidence relating to a terrorist act,
and to permit control of the movement and
activity of persons threatening a terrorist risk”
(Rose &Nestorovska, 2007, p. 41). The
following acts reflect this approach.
Under the ASIO Legislation Amendment
(Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth), the Australian
Security Intelligence Organisation may
obtain a warrant to question, and detain
while questioning, people involved in,
or who may have important information
about, terrorist activity’. The Act
enables a ‘person to be questioned for
up to 24 hours (or 48 hours where
interpreters are used) and to be detained
for up to seven consecutive days.
(Ruddock, 2004, p. 258)
Under the Anti-terrorism Act (No 2) 2005 (Cth),
an initial preventative detention order for up to
48 hours may be granted to a member of the
Australian Federal Police by a senior AFP
member and continuing orders by appointed
judicial officers, with provision for repeated
