New Gun Laws Will Impact Freedom of Speech and Thought

Free speech and freedom of thought are at the bedrock of our democratic society, so it is outrageous that the Bill could challenge them.

Over 17,000 firearms and weapons were surrendered in the most recent year of Australia's national gun amnesty. Joel Carrett/AAP

Commentary

The Firearms Bill 2024 before Western Australia’s (WA) state Parliament is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that will violate the rights of all citizens.

The Bill will effectively legislate away a person’s right to silence, and their property rights. It presumes guilt by association, discriminates on the basis of health or disability, and challenges the right to free speech and freedom of opinion.

The right to silence has long been recognized as fundamental to democracy.

Since the days of England’s Star Chamber, it has protected people against the lack of due process and arbitrary rulings.

It most certainly protects citizens against the excesses of law enforcement or the judiciary, with their almost limitless resources and ability to produce dubious or unfair evidence.

Self-incrimination can be the missing link in an unjust case against a person, and the right to silence protects them from such unfair self-incrimination.

Yet the Firearms Bill’s Section 368 threatens any person with a fine if they do not “answer any question asked by a police officer under this Act.”

Legal opinion suggests this applies to all people, not only firearms owners, and would therefore, strip them of their right to silence.

Free Speech and Beliefs Also Under Threat

Section 150 allows the WA police commissioner to have regard to “the person’s views, opinions and attitudes.”

Free speech and freedom of thought are at the bedrock of our democratic society, so it is outrageous that the Bill could challenge them.

It would be understandable if the Bill specified being a member of a dangerous terrorist organisation, or having similar harmful beliefs.

But the Bill does not specify those. Instead, it leaves the clause “view, opinions, and attitudes” vague, and open to a wide interpretation.

Section 150 also specifies that a “person’s conduct and behaviour” can be taken into consideration.

Again, the Bill is vague on the exact parameters around “conduct and behaviour.”

It could mean belonging to a terrorist organisation. But it could also allow the denial of a licence to a person if they have protested outside a Chinese consulate when the state is negotiating a trade deal? Both are possible under this vague wording.

Police Given Room to Interpret Potential Threats

The Bill also allows the police to form moral judgements about a “person’s way of living or domestic circumstances” and “whether the person is of good repute.”

Again, these criteria are vague and there are no guidelines on their meaning.

It also allows for adverse judgements about people’s lifestyles and preferred living arrangements.

In fact, some Indigenous people have asked about this clause and whether it would affect them, because they live a mobile lifestyle and hunt to feed their families.

So far, the government has not provided a satisfactory answer.

In sections 148, 150, 153 and 399, the Bill also opens people to medical or disability discrimination. The Bill’s medical standards have no objective criteria. Doctors have already complained that they are being asked to make medical judgements about legal matters.

Indeed, the medical standards being proposed have no objective basis and they have little to nothing to do with the safe use of firearms. It also fosters disability discrimination.

State MP Merome Beard has raised concerns that the Bill could effectively outlaw Paralympians competing in shooting events.

The Bill and associated reforms threaten several other rights, including property rights. It would violate the right of property owners to decide who they can invite onto their land.

The government already violates the right of citizens to fair compensation when private property is confiscated. Under the current “buyback” citizens have sometimes been offered only offered a fraction of a firearm’s value.

Government Overreach Expanding

Western Australia does not have an epidemic of gun violence.

It may seem strange that the government is rushing through the Firearms Bill and trying to stop it being scrutinised by the Standing Committee on Legislation.

But this is just the latest in a series of violations of citizens’ rights. These include the draconian responses to COVID, police abuse of the “Safe WA” app, the Department of Main Roads’ illegal surveillance of drivers, government interference with the judiciary, and the government’s attack on parliamentary privilege.

During the COVID crisis, government and police assumed undemocratic powers, some of which have not been given up.

Too many people acquiesced because they felt afraid. It seems that the same is happening with firearms.

Using the cover of a gun violence epidemic, the government is whittling away at the rights of all.

The question now is whether WA’s citizens will tolerate this, or demand proper scrutiny of a Bill.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.