
Australia’s status as an open democracy downgraded by The CIVICUS Monitor - DyslexicAtheist
https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2019/12/5/downgrading-of-australias-open-democracy-status-a-stark-reminder-of-the-need-to-create-an-australian-charter-of-human-rights-and-freedoms
======
RVuRnvbM2e
Yeah the current government has been accelerating an authoritarian slide
unencumbered by a bill of rights. Neither major party supports such a document
and without it you get bullshit like this recent secret trial and
imprisonment:

[https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-21/canberra-
prisoner-...](https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-21/canberra-prisoner-
prompts-secrecy-debate/11726654)

~~~
friendlybus
A bill of rights does not protect you against secret trials. Assange's secret
indictment is a famous example.

~~~
ekianjo
Where is the trial of Assange secret exactly? You can consider his treatment
to be unfair but there's been nothing secret about it.

~~~
friendlybus
For a few years he has claimed that the US had a sealed indictment on him in
secret it was left unproven until recently when part of it was revealed and
then it was confirmed.

There's also the case of ladar levison getting a national security letter when
his business was FBI'ed for hosting encrypted snowden emails. That letter
meant he could not even tell his wife what was happening, including going to
court and being generally railroaded by the legal system. His defcon talks on
the legal lies he experienced in court are amusing. Being accuses of running
from police put the backdoor of 5 story apartment building with no exit for
the sake of speeding up proceedings along with his lawyer being bismurched for
ties he knew nothing about and copy and paste text in the prosecution's legal
docs.

I mean the US had Guantanamo, secrecy in the US government has been the norm
for a while.

~~~
iudqnolq
Sounds like he thought he could outsmart the legal system and learned courts
don't treat you well when you try to pretend the law is a computer program.

> Levison reluctantly turned over his encryption keys to the government,
> although not in a manner that the government deemed useful—he provided a
> lengthy printout in tiny type, a move the authorities said was
> objectionable. The company had treated the matter "as if it was a contract
> negotiation," rather than a "lawful court order,” Assistant US Attorney
> Andrew Peterson, who represented the government, told the appellate court.

Also, hearing someone say they didnt have time to hire a lawyer is a massive
red flag. Not having a lawyer, especially if you haven't ever learned about
the law, is nearly a guarantee you're about to be screwed. Most judges know
this and will give you more time to find a lawyer if you need it (called a
continuance). I don't know if he asked, but I suspect if he had and the judge
had refused his request he'd have stated that.

His case may have had merits, but if this is how he approached the legal
system I think his losses can be attributed to him.

~~~
friendlybus
When the other side of the story is Ladar saying he hired a lawyer and the
prosecution characterized it as an act of defiance.. then character attacks on
both sides lose their value.

He turned over the keys on paper because that's all he had access to in the 3
hours he had to provide it.

[https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=4485](https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=4485)
Timestamp for the paper keys.

There is way more detail that shows he was put in extremely difficult
situations and his ability to respond to quite a few legal mechanisms was
severely limited by compressed timeframes and legal actions been done in
parallel and out of sight.

The whole talk linked goes through a lot of it in detail, if you want to take
the Wiki's story do.. but it's not the whole story in any sense of the word.

[https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=5754](https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=5754)
Timestamp for a Q&A question that asks specifically about the paper keys and
he goes in to much more detail.

~~~
iudqnolq
I'm not going to watch the entire talk. Just listening at the timestamp you
provided, I think he confirms my characterization. He states that technically
the government never specified how they wanted the keys, so he could hand them
over however he wanted even if the format he provided was extremely hard to
make use of. This isn't how the law works. Him saying that he thought up some
clever trick, and not that his lawyer proposed a clever trick, is also a
massive red flag.

The document up on the screen in the video says he had 24 hours. That's enough
time to type up an encryption key, if the printout was actually readable.

Can you provide a cite for hiring a lawyer being characterized as an act of
defiance? My assumption, given no further information, is that he didn't hire
a normal lawyer in a normal fashion if that happened. Many things are unfair
about the US legal system, I have never heard being penalized for having a
lawyer being one of them.

~~~
friendlybus
The cite for an act of defiance is in the video I linked. It's not a strict
penalty, but an argument from prosecution.

If you listen to the talk he had flown to the court with a limited amount of
equipment and he addresses the issue of "readability" in the Q&A section I
linked. You didn't listen because he says himself he had 3 hours inside court
proceedings to provide it.

I'm not just going to transcribe a video for you. I've provided the source.
I've spent enough time on this.

~~~
iudqnolq
He may have had three hours to provide it from when the judge denied his
motion, but people who know what they're doing plan on what they'll do if they
lose a motion ahead of time.

He states that only lawyers are allowed to bring encrypted devices into
federal courthouses. This is false. Likely he refers to the fact that you have
to check electronic devices like cellphones at the security desk.

Here's what the appeals court had to say about his production of the keys:

> Despite the unequivocal language of the August 1 Order, Lavabit dallied and
> did not comply. Just before the 5:00 pm August 2 deadline, for instance,
> Levison provided the FBI with an 11-page printout containing largely
> illegible characters in 4-point type, which he represented to be Lavabit’s
> encryption keys. The Government instructed Lavabit to provide the keys in an
> industry-standard electronic format by the morning of August 5. Lavabit did
> not respond.

> The Government sought penalties of $5,000 a day until Lavabit provided the
> encryption keys to the Government. The district court granted the motion for
> sanctions that day. Two days later, Levison provided the keys to the
> Government. By that time, six weeks of data regarding the target had been
> lost.

[http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/134625.P.pdf](http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/134625.P.pdf)

If you know you might be forced to provide something, and you make it really
hard for yourself to get that information in response, judges in the US legal
system may well lack sympathy for you.

I'm not seeking to make a value judgement about right and wrong here, I'm
trying to argue that Levison's issues stemmed from deliberately choosing to do
legally dumb things.

------
WilTimSon
As I was reading, I was about to pipe up with "oh, prosecuting whistleblowers
and intimidating journalists? I hope the US and the UK are in the same boat"
but yup, they are, according to the CIVICUS map. I see no reason to disagree.

I do have to say I'm surprised that Canada is considered 'open'. I don't know
much about their politics, are things really good there on all those points?
Also, highly amused by Russia only being 'Repressed', the past few years of
news from that place seem anything but democratic.

~~~
cryptica
Having lived in Russia for 6 months in the past, it's is not as bad as western
media makes it seem. Unlike China, their internet is still open. Also,
internet access is much cheaper there than in the west. Politically, people
are definitely afraid to speak out against top government figures but there is
still some freedom of expression politically but of course not quite at the
level of most of the western world.

Russia's government is relatively new and people are still getting used to
capitalism and democracy. I think people are still in control because they
know most of the facts. People are simply more tolerant of their politicians
bending the rules. Russians like a strong leader; for most Russian people,
this is more important than democracy itself.

~~~
Fnoord
> Russians like a strong leader; for most Russian people, this is more
> important than democracy itself.

In the same way Italians preferred Berlusconi, despite the scandals (e.g.
Bunga Bunga sex parties [1])?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunga_bunga#Resurgence_in_Ital...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunga_bunga#Resurgence_in_Italy)

~~~
Synaesthesia
You have to also understand the context. Russia was ruined by Yeltsin and the
free for all under him, it was a major catastrophe. So of course Putin, who
brought Russia out of the abyss and back into a position of power, will be
popular there.

~~~
zzzcpan
_> Russia was ruined by Yeltsin_

This is just propaganda. Another way to look at it: Putin, as a head of FSB,
sabotaged Yeltsin to get into power.

------
ajxs
I was hoping that this article was going to be more of an in-depth critique of
the poor state of regulatory capture and disruption of democratic institutions
by bad actors in the private sector. My local state government ( NSW ) has
been steadily growing more ostensibly corrupt over the last decade. I don't
think there's many people denying the fact that wealthy business stakeholders
get a disproportionate say in legislation and the allocation of public
resources at the moment.

~~~
LIV2
I still have no idea why people voted them in again, Everything they do can be
found to benefit the developers (like selling waterfront property in Woy Woy
for only $40k to a developer, selling the land the powerhouse museum is on to
developers, rail corridors etc)

It's pretty depressing

~~~
bamboozled
I see two major issues in politics right now.

The first being that Democracy wasn’t ready for social media and the Internet
and still isn’t.

The second is a major one without an easy solution. It seems we’re always
forced to vote for the least worst option.

I feel many democracies need to consider alternatives. I think It would be
nice to introduce a pre-election poll and first ask voters to decide on
whether they’re actually satisfied with the candidates and policies put forth
_prior_ to the actual election. Else we just end up with 4 years of no one
being happy with the lesser of two evils running the show.

This is why people always say “I can’t believe X won”. It’s because there is
often no alternative but democracy just plugs on as usual even though no one
was really satisfied with their options. I believe it’s also why many major
elections of late have been so close, people are just divided.

I’d propose that if the voters aren’t ready to proceed with the election, say
someone such as the Governor General (in Australia’s case), needs to work with
major parties to start another pre-selection round.

I’m also interested in the idea that politicians should be “pardoned” by those
who elected them before leaving office, ie if major initiatives were not
implemented, there should be some accountability for that and maybe some
penalties, ie reduced pension.

It’s insane to think one can be the leader of a country and not be held
accountable for a single thing during a term in office, wow.

~~~
marcusverus
I feel like this is less a problem with democracy than it is with our legacy
nation-states. Democracy doesn't scale well and is not equipped to reconcile
irreconcilable differences. How can lefties in San Francisco and right wingers
in Oklahoma be expected to find middle ground when their stated goals are
mutually exclusive?

You could address these issues by tinkering with democracy on a massive scale,
or you could sub-divide the legacy nation states into regional powers with
common cultures and goals, and allow them to go their separate ways.

------
shasheene
This refers to the CIVICUS Monitor rankings. See the interactive world map:
[https://monitor.civicus.org/](https://monitor.civicus.org/)

------
PixyMisa
The article doesn't go into any specifics. But I can't say I disagree,
unfortunately, with actions like the bipartisan legislation on strong
encryption last year.

Australia needs to adopt the US Bill of Rights - just cross out "Congress" and
write in "Parliament" and be done.

It won't stop abuses, but would give a way to fight back.

~~~
senectus1
yeah I dont disagree, but I find it hard to believe that the US has the same
rating as Aus...

Also, is it just me or is that map just a double of "Left or Right aligned" ?

~~~
PixyMisa
They list New Zealand as "open" when that country just passed new laws -
almost overnight - allowing people to be jailed for their speech.

So yes, they have a lot of bias. They are pointing out real problems, but they
are also ignoring real problems.

------
wz1000
I thought the notion that Australia was a democracy was laid to rest in 1975
with the CIA's coup of Whitlam's government.

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-
whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)

------
Fnoord
How does this relate to the Democracy Index [1]? In the 2018 version,
Australia is a full point ahead to USA.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)

~~~
ImaCake
This CIVICUS rating has a lot less fidelity. But both seem to be based off
surveying political scientists and other experts. I guess it is difficult to
quantify something as complex as the "democraticness" of a government.

It's somewhat funny that Australia and the UK should be lumped in with the US.
Australia's democracy has a ton of features that the US system completely
lacks; independent electoral commission, preference voting, an ecosystem of
parties that have real power outside the two major parties, parliamentary
system instead of presidential, and many more.

I think a lot of alarm over recent scandals is just the ongoing tug of war
between order and liberty. People who support more liberty or more order are
always quick to argue that recent events extrapolate into infinite of whatever
they think is bad. Very occasionally they are right, but mostly they are not.

~~~
quotemstr
Political science, like all the social sciences these days, has an extreme
ideological skew. Consequently, any subjective evaluation of the openness (or
any other kind of goodness) of a particular country is going to partially
reflect merely the extent to which that country reflects the prevailing
ideological skew among the experts doing the evaluation. In the present
climate, it's difficult to imagine a well-run democratic country with politics
opposite to that which prevails in Western academia receiving a great score no
matter how well it's run.

Personally, I consider these sorts of studies as just noise. I can't trust any
of their methods or conclusions when the researchers are all drawn from an
intellectual monoculture that demands constant activism in favor of that
monoculture.

------
nness
Thoroughly depressing.

------
hamhand
One can argue that to fight authoritarian infiltration and culture clash,
certain amount of de-democracy may be needed. After all, the free nature of
democracy by which malignant powers exploited is what allowed the situation
worsening to alarming levels.

~~~
Synaesthesia
No we need more democracy, to combat this attack on democracy.

A bad democracy is still in principle better than a benevolent dictatorship.

------
chvid
[https://monitor.civicus.org](https://monitor.civicus.org)

According to this map Australia then joins the ranks of the US, the UK, South
Africa and Japan.

It is a fun map. But honestly it is silly. Australia is an open and
functioning democracy, so is the UK or the US for that matter.

------
mac_was
This is based not on any research, polls, just a group of people decide how is
a country by reading newspaper articles. While in some cases a democracy
status might really show what is happening in a specific country on the other
hand there is bias involved, if we compare that in France we've got constant
protests, fighting with Police and it is on the same level as Australia?

~~~
brnt
Its based on human rights watch organisations, not people reading newspapers.

Also, democracy does not equal absence of civil unrest. Possibly even the
opposite.

~~~
mac_was
The name implies how these organisations do their work - they watch. And the
only way to watch is to read articles, watch TV news, etc.

Civil unrest shows that people are unhappy and government is not doing
anything, is this democracy? The difference between France and poor countries
is if you live in a poor country you fight to survive and have got no energy
to protest, in Europe, basic rights (food, vote, etc) are provided and people
can protest and then go to supermarkets to get food. So again is French
government truly democratic? Should we use the same measures in France,
Australia and Kongo?

~~~
WilTimSon
That is absolutely not the only way to watch. These organisations talk to
local activists, assess the court processes in countries, etc.

~~~
mac_was
While I believe that these organisation do more good than harm I do believe
that they are biased in some cases.

